969 – Transcript

Just Right
Episode 969
Air Date: June 17, 2026
Host: Bob Metz

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

Clip (The Fountainhead):
Ellsworth Toohey: So you were after power, Mr. Weynand. And you thought you were a practical man? You left to impractical intellectuals like me the whole field of ideas to corrupt as we please, while you were busy making money. You thought money was power. Is it, Mr. Weynand? You poor amateur. You’ve never been enough of a scoundrel for your own ambition.

Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, June 17th, 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 when it’s just right.

Well, it’s back to basics on the show today. Establishing the necessary foundational principles and applications in the establishment or restoration of a free society. As the political world continues to drift left, many on the right are still unable to explain or comprehend why this is so, given that the ideologies commonly associated with the left—communism, socialism, fascism—have consistently proven themselves to be disastrous in terms of their promises made and expectations created. Worse, the benefits of freedom, capitalism, and individualism, which have always proved to create freedom and prosperity, remain not only unrecognized and unseen by many, but are actively opposed. That is why we find it even necessary to speak in terms of having to restore our once free society.

As our opener from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead suggests, impractical intellectuals were given the whole field of ideas to corrupt as they please. That pretty well describes the intellectual field ruling today’s political and social zeitgeist. So clearly, what is necessary is a manifesto of practical and principled ideas whose power to attract others and motivate them into effective action might actually be able to restore the American dream and individual freedom that emanated from America’s founding.

How might this be done? Answering that question is the theme of our show today. It begins right after our reminder that you can write us at 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. As always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.

Now, I had an unexpected and remarkably pleasant experience over the past week or so. It came in the discovery of a kindred spirit with a shared political philosophy who, more than any other voice I can think of, thinks and talks as if he were a regular fan of Just Right.

But I know that is not so. His story of how he discovered the principles of a free society and their significance, and how to promote them, paralleled my own political journey in the right direction—from my earliest various ad hoc political activities to becoming a founding member of the Freedom Party of Ontario. In fact, it paralleled my own experience so closely that all of our audio bites this week will feature G. Edward Griffin in conversation with Alex Jones on his June 6 show.

At 94 years of age, Griffin has a unique political history of discovery, very different from my own, that nevertheless seems to have led him to the very principles and ideas—even expressed in terms—that will be very familiar to our listeners. Griffin speaks articulately and entertainingly about his own political experiences. One thing I found amusing was how he discovered that communist groups and individuals promoting communist books and literature have never actually read their manifestos. This is a significant observation given what it actually reveals about the appeal of socialism and communism.

So let our journey now begin with Alex Jones in conversation with G. Edward Griffin on a theme and subject that mirrors what this show is about on a weekly basis. I have some very strong criticisms—not disagreements—about what we will be hearing next, because I generally agree with everything being said. But this is neither a contradiction nor a paradox. If anything, it is an expression of support.

Clip (Alex Jones with G. Edward Griffin, June 6, 2026 – Collectivism):
Alex Jones: We have him now, the legendary old friend of mine, G. Edward Griffin. RedPillExpo.org, RedPillUniversity.org, leading the movement to get grassroots citizens involved, educated, taking action. He’s pioneered full-length feature films, best-selling books since the 60s exposing the whole globalist agenda. Just absolutely amazing, a living legend. Wonderful to see you, my friend. Thank you for the time today.

G. Edward Griffin: It’s my pleasure and honor to be on your show again. I started out on a political crusade when I discovered what was really going on in the world. I came on talking about the foreign policy of the United States and Israel and all the chicanery that was going on. That’s been going on forever, and it’s just amazing how long it’s taking for people to see it.

I guess my problem, if you want to call it that—and I think it’s justly so—is that I have a crusader gene. When I see these things happening, I think, by golly, I’m going to change that, and so they’re off I go. Right now I think it’s probably the most exciting time in all history. I might say that. Maybe people always say that when they’re living through something. But I really think what’s happening in the world today is going to make the biggest change to the human race of any period that we know of.

Alex Jones: Incredible. Are you optimistic about where humanity is right now?

G. Edward Griffin: I am not optimistic, nor am I pessimistic. I like to think of myself as being realistic, which has a little bit of both in it. What I mean by that in terms of our era today is that if you never get burned, you always will get burned. In other words, you have to feel the pain before you learn the lesson.

The reason I’m bringing that up is because I think in most of my life I was born into the America that I read about in the school books. I thought I was. And I discovered later on that wasn’t true. I found out that our government had largely been infiltrated, affected, taken over in essence by people who were not really Americans in the sense of what their ideals were. They might be American citizens, but all of a sudden they were turning into the view of the global theater. They wanted to be global leaders, not American leaders. They felt that America had too much advantage and they wanted to whittle it down and bring it to her knees so she could join all the rest of the other countries in the new world order. The world government would be the new thing. A lot of our leaders that we thought were our leaders were not.

Alex Jones: They’re cold-blooded eugenicists, transhumanists, post-humanists, anti-natalists who were just absolutely at the end of the day psychotic Satanists.

G. Edward Griffin: The only thing I would add one more word to it as part of my crusade. I would add the word collectivist. Now that sounds like it’s very bland compared to your list of names. What is a collectivist and who cares?

One of the things I became aware of a long time ago is that the problem with the liberty movement, if you want to call it that—I always have trouble trying to find a good name for it—the trouble for the ideology of liberty and freedom is that nobody knows how to define it. I came to the realization somewhere way back that Karl Marx had his Communist Manifesto and in Das Kapital. You could read what Karl Marx said about communism and socialism. Adolf Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf. You could read what fascism and Nazism were all about. It’s all there.

But the people who represent what we represent—the idea of liberty and freedom—we have no statement of principles of what we believe in. All we do is just call names to other people. I’m not saying any of the words that you use are wrong, because they’re not wrong. That’s right. We can’t just oppose collectivism and all the forms of tyranny that come with their gang rule. We have to have an alternative system to challenge it.

Alex Jones: Yeah, and where is it?

G. Edward Griffin: I’m working on a new book and it deals with that. I’m calling it The Human Manifesto: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. It’s not a communist manifesto. It’s not a political ideology. It’s a human ideology. And that’s what freedom is all based on.

It’s going to be, I think, an amazing journey for people who are concerned about these things and have our view that the human is the center of things and not the collective, not the mechanism of a lot of people and big numbers and those with the most money and those with the most cannons and bullets and bayonets. No—those who are the most human.

Anyway, I like all the words you used, but people have trouble defining them. When I think about what our enemy is—and I call our enemy the collectivists—by that I mean you find collectivists in every country and they’re united on that country to country. You find them in every religion. No matter what religion it is, there are collectivists there, and they’re usually the ones at the top. You find them in every race. You find them in every cross-section of society. And they’re there everywhere. That’s why we have trouble trying to name these people. We say, well, they’re the Americans or they’re the Chinese or they’re the bad people over there in some country. Maybe Cuba, who knows. So people start thinking of their opponents as racial groups or national groups.

Alex Jones: No, I agree. I always try to make it about the policy and what they stand for. So why don’t you define a collectivist and how they operate? Because the average person who is a collectivist is the poor person getting a welfare check. No—the ultra-rich historically are the real collectivists. Feudalism, where they collect it all from us and divvy it out on top, making themselves in control.

G. Edward Griffin: That’s absolutely correct. And it’s a secret because most people, even in our ranks, if you want to call them that, will say that they don’t know what capitalism is. They think that capitalism is just having a lot of money. And that’s not true. Capitalism is not anything to do with how much money you have. It has to do with what kind of a society and economic system you want to live under.

The wealthiest people in the world are not capitalist by pure definition. They’re collectivists. They don’t believe in competition. They believe in monopolies. It slays me when I hear people trying to come up, struggle with words to describe their enemy, and they usually wind up saying, well, they’re the bad guys and we’re the good guys. That’s what it amounts to. And there in a nutshell is the reason we have been losing this bloody war and the reason that nothing is being changed, even though we’re saying, look how bad it is. Oh, here’s another. Oh, it’s worse than we thought. Oh, but it still goes on and on and on because we’re not picking out the collectivists who are running the show—because some of them are on our team, we think.

How many of the Republicans that are involved in this battle, and they think they’re battling the Democrats—what is the difference between those two groups, aside from their rhetoric, when it comes time to vote? They’re in unity on all the principles, political and social principles, but they never talk about principles. They just talk about what Republicans or Democrats are. We’re for liberty or we’re for tyranny, you know, and those people are evil and we’re good. And that’s how the world has been running—is who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

Alex Jones: But let’s talk about solutions first.

G. Edward Griffin: We’re not in control. We’re giving quite a bit of leeway still on the ability to talk about it and complain about it and make recommendations about it and call for action and all of that. But when it comes to removing the collectivists who are in positions of authority, we don’t know how to do that. They took over the educational system a long time ago to train all the future leaders, which they’ve succeeded now in doing. It’s a strategy that they have achieved and they wrote about it in those old days.

I ran across all these old books back in the day when all the tycoons were taking over everything and it was no longer money, it was political. There was a change. The banking fraternity decided they had all the money. In fact, they succeeded in getting Congress to allow them to make the bloody stuff. Now they make the money.

People think the Federal Reserve system is a government agency. It ain’t. It’s a private cartel. People don’t know that. They still don’t know about it. Many of them don’t want to know about it. That’s their problem. They can go on with all the problems.

But now we come to the question of what are we going to do about it? I think that the secret is to, first of all, get an ideology that we can all say to each other, we believe in that. This is what we’re fighting for. This is the idea, what we’re willing to fight for, what we’re willing to die for if necessary. We have to have our own ideology.

How many people do we know, and if you ask them, well, what does liberty mean? What would you think they’d say? They’d probably go, well, that means not being in jail. To them, many people, being free is simply not being in jail.

Alex Jones: So give us your expert definition of what human freedom is. And it’ll take a moment to cover it all, but I can summarize this. No, no, no—take your time. I’m going to sit back and shut up. Go ahead.

G. Edward Griffin: Well, don’t do that, Alex. All the exciting part would be out of this thing. What is collectivism? It’s a battle actually between collectivism and the opposite, which is called individualism. Those are the only two ideologies in the world when you really cut all the garbage away and get down to the bones and the heartbeat and so forth. There are only two ideologies in the world, and it’s individualism versus collectivism.

All these other words like communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, New Dealism, whatever—people move titles around because they sound good, and nobody really knows how to define them. So I decided years ago I had to see if it was possible to pull together all the great ideas that in that time period I was learning. I made myself go to the library and start to learn about what are these ideologies and read a lot of these old books a couple of hundred years old. And I was amazed to find out that these books had the word collectivism in them and the word individualism in them. I never read those words in our modern literature. I discovered that they were systematically removed about the period between World War I and World War II because they were too clear, established principles. The people who were talking about, I call them the collectivists, didn’t want us to understand who they were and what they believed. They wanted us to just worry about who you’re going to vote for. You’re like, who’s running? Oh, I like this guy. Oh, he’s Republican? Oh, vote for him. That’s what they want us to do because it’s nothing. We’re like putty in their hands with that kind of an outlook.

Anyway, back to the main topic. What is collectivism? What is the ideal of liberty? I’m glad you gave me a little bit of time because I want to explain how I came to this understanding. My tuning in started in 1960. I remembered very clearly. That’s what I was shaken out of my complacency and my stupidity about everything, just about everything. I was climbing the corporate ladder, or so I thought. And then I got sidetracked. I read something and somebody handed me a pamphlet about the United Nations. It was written by a college professor at some Midwestern university. I don’t remember the name of it now. But the title of the pamphlet, I believe, was The Truth About the United Nations. Of course, when I read this thing and I saw that the author was saying that the United Nations was a fraud and that everything it said, it actually meant the opposite, and it was fooling people thinking that by promising to put an end to war and poverty and injustices of all kinds and save little children from serious diseases and all these good things that were being told about the UN—and now this guy says that it’s bad and that they were lying—I was really outraged by that. And so I went to the library. I started to read about it and I found out, by golly, this professor was right.

It was in that period that I decided to do a little nudging around on my own. So I was everybody’s worried about communism in those days. Communism had taken over Russia, taken over China, taken over countries in South America, and taken over Cuba right there at our doorstep. We saw communists marching in the streets here in America. Communism was a big problem, at least I thought, and it was. Everybody was concerned about communism. So I became an anti-communist. Naturally, I couldn’t understand why people kept falling for communism when history was so plain that every time communism came to power in some nation, there was mass genocide. Millions of people got assassinated because they disagreed with the new regime. Private property was confiscated and all the things we know about. The nations usually went into poverty. Production came to a halt and all kinds of injustices and everything. How come, with this history right out in front of us, were people still buying into communism?

So I decided to go down to the communist bookstore in Los Angeles. It’s called the People’s Bookshop on Larchmont Street. I started hanging out with the comrades. Now remember, I’m a young guy, I think probably about 29 or something like that. I’m looking like a wannabe businessman. I got my suit on, a little narrow tie, and my sideburns. I was in style at the time. I walk in like that to a communist bookstore. And I was on a place, you might say. They were very suspicious of me, but they finally decided that I might be a prospect because I demonstrated quite clearly that I was interested in reading their books. I wanted to find out what their motives were and so forth. So I went back multiple times and they tried to recruit me actually into the system. I didn’t pull any punches with them. I said I’m really interested in what you guys have to say. So they were selling me all these books and I bought them all, including all the volumes I could find of the works of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who was really the author of communism as far as I’m concerned, more so than Karl Marx. But anyway, I read all the things I could find written by Lenin. And I discovered an interesting thing, Alex. I discovered that the people pushing those books on me had not read them. It was amazing. They had not read them because I would ask them questions about certain features and they wouldn’t know what I was talking about.

Bob Metz:
Which is, understandably, why those on the left are incapable of honest discussion or debate. And why they constantly resort to violence to impress us all with their wise counsel.

But inciting his rejection of optimism or pessimism in favor of a realistic attitude, Griffin reminded us that you have to feel the pain before you learn the lesson. How coincidental that this same point was raised on last week’s show when Tommy Robinson argued that all of the problems they were facing in Britain had to happen. We had to get this slow in order to awaken culturally.

Well, it’s that argument that you have to hit rock bottom before you’re willing to seek a cure, isn’t it? The problem with this perspective is that even when people do feel the pain, they still don’t learn anything because they’re simply not capable of doing so, especially if they have a collectivist mindset. Why do people always have to feel pain before, quote-unquote, learning a lesson? Why can they never learn a lesson by feeling the pleasure or joy of a given non-painful existence or experience?

I’ve never really asked that question quite in that way, but I think I’ve got a working theory. The reason that people, quote-unquote, never learn a lesson from non-painful experiences is because there’s nothing to learn from such an experience itself without being acutely aware of its opposite. The polarity required to make choices and thus, quote-unquote, learn a lesson is utterly missing. Of course, most human beings aren’t inclined to action unless they experience some kind of pain, however defined—physical, emotional, psychological. But at the same time, you cannot deny that awakening to any threat or crisis first requires recognizing it.

This is where the necessity of accurate labels and definitions becomes the only means of shining a light on what is otherwise not seen or understood. For example, Griffin noted that the American government had been infected and infiltrated and taken over by people who were not really Americans in the sense of what their ideals were. Now that’s an interesting distinction. Apparently Griffin defines an American not by the fact that he may be a long-standing citizen and live in America, but by a philosophy that expresses the founding principles of America itself. This therefore becomes a shared cultural identity rather than one of status or geographical location.

To which Alex Jones responded: they’re cold-blooded eugenicists, transhumanists, post-humanists, anti-natalists who are just absolutely psychotic Satanists.

Here’s where I thought that Griffin cleverly refuted Jones without actually disagreeing with him. While slightly laughing in response to all of these labels, he simply said that only I would add one more word to it as part of my crusade—collectivist.

Then he said this: the trouble for the ideology of liberty and freedom is that nobody knows how to define it. The people of liberty and freedom have no statement of principles of what we believe in. All we do is call names. Yeah, like cold-blooded eugenicists, transhumanist, psychotic Satanists. Well, these are not exactly the kind of polarizing labels around which people can make a choice.

We have to have an alternative system to challenge them, Griffin very astutely suggests. In proposing such an alternative in the form of his planned book, tentatively entitled The Human Manifesto, I think he’s making an error in choosing that title. I understand his reasoning for doing so because as he asserts, it’s not a political ideology, it’s a human ideology, and that’s what freedom is based on.

Well, but if freedom is the objective, then I would strongly recommend that he title his book in alignment with that objective—at least call it a Freedom Manifesto, not a human one. Because I’ve got some bad news for him with regard to using the word human. Collectivism and all of its variants—communism, fascism, socialism—are also human ideologies, even though the humans who identify with them act more like animals since everything they advocate and do requires the initiation of coercion and physical force. To say nothing of the fact that the term human rights is a redundancy, given that only humans are capable of possessing rights in the first place. And worse, the term human rights is constantly used by collectivists creating non-existent group rights in opposition to the proper and objective term individual rights.

I can speak from personal experience when I say that some of the most evil and collectivist and racist groups I have personally confronted in the political arena usually come bearing some label like, for example, Ontario’s Human Rights Commission, under which all standards are based on a given group being given rights that supersede someone’s individual rights. And that fraudulent group called the United Nations, according to Griffin’s discovery, also uses the term human rights ad nauseam.

So again, right ideas, but wrong label if using the word human. But to assume that freedom is not a political ideology but a human one is a contradiction given the context of the political polarity. Much to his credit, Griffin perfectly identified that polarity when he made his most profound statement declaring that there is a battle between collectivism and its opposite, which is called individualism. I found out that those are the only two ideologies in the world. Wow. Yes, that is the polarity defined in human terms. But in political terms, the simplest and most accurate labels to use in identifying them are left and right.

I began to wonder why Griffin didn’t immediately apply those labels having so clearly identified the polarity. Well, that was another lesson he learned the hard way and we’ll hear about that experience shortly. But one thing that was news to me was to learn that in reading books that were a couple of hundred years old, he discovered that these books had the words collectivism and individualism in them and that they were systematically removed during the period between World War I and World War II because the terms were too clear by establishing principles and the collectivists didn’t want us to understand who they were and what they believed.

Wow. This reminded me of our own coverage going back a few years provided by Dinesh D’Souza who referred to the exact same process outlining how Democrats, immediately following World War II, systematically removed fascism from the left polarity and placed it on the right and taught this false polarity in the form of a fake political spectrum in public schools and media outlets across the nation.

I have to say that on this particular count, G. Edward Griffin actually confesses to being played for a fool, as we’ll hear in this next segment of his interview with Alex Jones.

Clip (Alex Jones with G. Edward Griffin, June 6, 2026 – A single polarity):
Alex Jones: I’ve gotten to know like a bunch of the top Russians and I’ve confirmed a whole bunch of stuff, but they come on and they know that the British intelligence sent in the Bolsheviks. They know. So that was a program of control now. Did you know Putin even talks about it? And talks about how communism was an outside disease planted over there? So I always hear, oh, they’re really faking that they’re not commies still. And still there’s some of that. But no, I know about the top Russians. They all say we’re with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. And at least that internally, and Putin said it publicly, that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn—he was secretly reading Solzhenitsyn when he was in the KGB.

I’m not lionizing Putin. I’m just saying I talked to Dugin and others and all these people that nobody else talks to and they sound like you actually. That’s wild.

G. Edward Griffin: Yeah, they know what they’re doing and they’re proud of it. They don’t necessarily hide it because they know from experience that most people don’t give a damn. They’re not interested. You can tell when I start to talk about these things, I can tell within about 30 seconds whether I got someone who’s interested or not. When the eyes get glazed and they’re sort of looking off and over your shoulder.

But bottom line, you can tell that it was the ultra-elite rich funding communism. Explain how that works.

Well, yeah, because those people are collectivists. That’s not my topic actually. That’s why I went to the communist bookstore—to find out how what all these crazy things that I was seeing, the richest people I could think of were actually promoting communism. I thought they were communists. And that’s the thing. I thought they were communists because they were promoting communists and communism.

Well, that makes sense. Why wouldn’t they be? Well, I had to get educated to find out they weren’t promoting communism. They were promoting collectivism. It was the ideology and that was communism is really one variant of it. And socialism, another variant of it. It’s mainly a mechanism to get there.

If you read what Obama said when he was leaving office, he said, look, we use communism to consolidate control. But then there’s an international elite that controls it for everyone’s good. So it’s ultra-rich collectivizing, enslaving people with a new feudalism. They call it freedom. But then the elites sit internationally above it, controlling it and traffic-copping it.

That’s as good a summary as I could think of. It’s always that small group at the top. Primarily centered, I think, around the banking fraternity because let’s face it, the money control, the creation of money, is the greatest power there is—even more so than atomic weapons. Because if you’ve got the money, you can have the atomic weapons. But if you have the atomic weapons, you might not get the money. But that’s another argument.

Anyway, yeah, power can take many forms. But the strongest form, in my view, is money because that is a way that you can commandeer, you can take away from people their freedom of action. And now that’s where we are. I mean, it’s very simple.

Well, it is very simple. That’s what we’re going through. We have been going through that actually for quite a while. They wanted to bring America to her knees. People who were independent had money in their pocket—their money, not the government’s money, but their money. They were free to snub their nose at the government. They wanted to say, well, I just can’t believe you guys. Okay, here’s your money. I’ll pay your taxes, get out of my way. But the object was to remove that independence on the part of the people and make them totally dependent on the state.

After going through that deal with the communist bookstore and all that, I started to make a list of all the principles, not the slogans. The slogans were from each according to their ability to each according to their need. Rah, rah, rah, we are against racism and war. Rah, rah, rah, sign me up. I’m all for all the slogans. And that’s how these guys over at the communist bookstore had been suckered into it because of the slogans. They didn’t ask any further questions. They didn’t ask how do we do this?

Anyway, so I started making a list of the principles, the actual ideology of what I thought was communism. And then I discovered later it was collectivism—the same principles. And that’s my point. I made a list of about 12 of them and there were about six that were really strong. And then I wondered, well, what’s the opposite of this? I had learned in school that the opposite of communism, which was the extreme left, would be fascism or Nazism, the extreme right. All right, makes sense, I thought.

But it’s totally false. It’s another brand of collectivism.

Yes, but I didn’t know that. I thought since Stalin and Hitler fought each other and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in a war between communism and Nazism, they had to be opposed to each other. What a shock it was to find out when I finally got hold of Mein Kampf and read Hitler’s book. And I lined those principles up with the ones that I had copied out of all the works that came from the communist side. They were exactly the same. And that was a jolt that really got me serious about this whole thing. And I thought, if I could have been fooled on that—to think that communism and Nazism were opposites, because that’s what it said, everybody told me that, and therefore it was true—when I could fall for that, I could fall for anything.

I made a list of these principles, Alex. There are two principles I’d like to mention. One is perhaps the most easy to understand. That is that collectivists—how shall I say this—collectivism is the concept that the group is more important than the individual and the individual must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of the greater number. That is a rock-solid principle of collectivism.

Alex Jones: And Spock always taught that on Star Trek.

G. Edward Griffin: Everybody teaches it. There’s every university teaches it. Every school room teaches it. Every nation in the world has adopted it. Ninety-nine percent of the people on the planet believe it. All right. But they don’t know what they’re—they don’t know. It’s called collectivism. They don’t know about the rest of it either. But it just sounds so good. I was taught it at the university. I thought it was a great idea. It sounds so good—from each according to your ability to each according to your needs is a slogan. You know.

So that was the one principle that describes collectivism. That is that the group is more important than the individual. And if you step out of line and it can be said by someone in authority, well, it’s too bad about you, but we got to get rid of you because you are impeding society. And that’s what they said with COVID. You are non-essential. We’re saying you’re not needed. So really it’s a license to kill and slay whoever you want because you get rid of individual liberties. That’s the cellular level. There is no liberty.

That’s right. You said it very well. That’s how it is. No. And the secret is that what is the group? This is—I don’t remember anybody writing that, but I remember when I was taking my notes, I wrote on the side, what is a group? If the group is more important than an individual, then what is the group? And it came to the amazing conclusion that the group does not exist the way humans do. Humans are real. But I realize there’s no such thing as a group. The group is an abstraction of the mind. It doesn’t exist. You can’t touch it. You can’t burn it.

A group is an abstraction. How is it? You know, it doesn’t even exist. It’s like the number seven. How can the number seven, just the number seven, the concept of seven of something—it’s an abstraction only the mind can recognize seven. How can that recognition have a power or a right, a human right, let’s say, that humans don’t have? It’s a way of fooling people into thinking that giving up their liberty is the right thing to do. That’s the bottom line. And they do an excellent job of that because you’re supposed to be compassionate and you’re supposed to make sacrifices on behalf of other people. Christian principles and so forth.

And it was just good when you do it individually on your own free will. But you’re now making sacrifices directed by someone else.

Yes. And you’re paying for it. They directed and you pay for it. And sometimes the help that they’re delivering to the underdog turns out not to be the underdog.

Alex Jones: Oh, like they all fly around in jet airplanes and are filthy rich with ten kids. But you can’t have air conditioning or medical care. Yeah. Oh, but you’re doing it for the earth. You’re a collectivist.

Bob Metz:
You are listening to Just Right broadcasting around the world and online.

If I could be fooled on that—that communism and fascism were opposites—if I could fall for that, I could fall for anything, says G. Edward Griffin, right along with millions upon millions of people who continue to believe in that completely fake polarity to this very day.

Like Griffin, they too had learned in school that the opposite of communism, which was the extreme left, was fascism or Nazism, the extreme right. This explains why so many on the true right—the polarity representing individualism—are so reluctant to be so labeled and are always defending themselves against phony accusations of racism, fascism, Nazism, rather than going on the offensive by becoming the definers rather than the defined.

In his quote-unquote confession, as I referred to it earlier, Griffin has effectively testified to the power of labels and how they can be used to either guide people in the right direction or create a state of mind under which they could fall for anything.

Like, for example, COVID, global warming and climate change, multiple gender identities, Y2K, open borders, state education, socialism, communism, fascism, central government planning, group rights, indigenous land acknowledgments, Marxism, MMIWG2SLGBT2QIA+, white privilege, public ownership, settled science, post-nationalism, globalism, whole language, viral pandemics, artificial intelligence and consciousness, mail-in ballots, censorship, the New Deal, democratic socialism, safe vaccines, diversity and equity hiring, multiculturalism—to mention but a few of the irrationalities routinely exposed and opposed on our show each and every week.

What an interesting way for Griffin to have discovered these deceptions. Having made a list of all the principles of communism, fascism, and socialism, he thought that since Stalin and Hitler fought each other, that communism and fascism had to be opposed to each other. What a shock it was to him when he got around to reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf and when he lined up those principles with the communist side, they were exactly the same. Sounds like the same shock that many experienced upon first realizing how so many Democrats and Republicans think the same and support the same policies. Thus, the Uniparty that rules because it offers the public no polarity against which to cast an informed and objective vote.

This is why political polarities can never be assumed to form along political party lines. Political opposition for power requires no ideological or philosophical differences at all between those competing for that power. That’s essentially how the democratic process in the West has manifested itself.

As Griffin noted earlier, our enemy, the collectivists, can be found in every country, every religion, in every race and cross-section of society. That’s why we have trouble trying to name these people. But that’s just half the problem. The right also has trouble in trying to name the people who are truly on the right.

So a good place to start is by establishing a clear contrast between collectivists and individualists. It is here that Griffin offers us a definition of collectivism that could have been taken from the Ayn Rand lexicon.

Quote: Collectivism is the concept that the group is more important than the individual and that the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the group. End quote.

As he notes, everybody teaches this and most people believe it. Then Griffin asks a very fundamental question that is so rarely considered because to answer it is to expose the unreality and absurdity of collectivism. That question is, what is the group? If a group is more important than an individual, then what is a group? A group, he concludes, does not exist. There’s no such thing. It’s just an abstraction of the mind. You cannot touch it, like the number seven.

Now, I’ve made this exact point myself many times over the years, using examples of grouping people for political purposes—landlords versus tenants, the rich versus the poor, blacks versus whites. By defining any given group interest to which politicians can appeal—like plumbers, farmers, workers, retailers, consumers, drivers—you can pretty well make up any grouping on demand. These are all abstractions created in the mind.

In asking how can an abstraction have a power that individuals do not have, the issue of representative government is defined at its core. One of the most glaring issues affected by this principle is the issue of owning weapons and guns. For example, as my Democratic representative, he or she has no power to prevent others from owning weapons, since I myself have no such authority. The same principle applies to everything from gun ownership to censorship and freedom of speech and many more issues.

We’ll be hearing more from Griffin on this point shortly. But he correctly explained that the effect of group fictions is to fool people into thinking that giving up their liberty is the right thing to do—that you’re supposed to be compassionate, make sacrifices on behalf of other people based on Christian principles, et cetera.

Well, Ayn Rand warned against this false morality by identifying it as altruism. I quote: Do not confuse altruism with kindness, goodwill or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which in fact altruism makes impossible. Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good. And any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus, the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value. And so long as the beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice.

And isn’t that so true? Anything goes in today’s zeitgeist.

Now for our final round of Griffin in conversation with Alex Jones during which their focus turns to individualism and to solutions in the fight against collectivism.

Clip (Alex Jones with G. Edward Griffin, June 6, 2026 – Consent of the governed):
Alex Jones: G. Edward, finishing up with collectivism, which is the parasitic enslavement cult calling it collectivism, but I agree that’s how you boil it down versus individualism. You’ve been spending some time on how you recognize collectivism, but it’s all around us. It’s the ether in which we swim versus individualism. How do you define how someone recognizes individualism?

G. Edward Griffin: Well, individualism is exactly the opposite of all of these principles that I was telling you about that I listed that I found in the literature of the fascists, the Nazis, the communists, and other forms of collectivism. So individualism is the exact opposite.

Take the first principle I already mentioned, which is that the group is more important than the individual. The individualist believes that the individual is the center of society and that the greater good for the greater number actually arrives when you put the individual ahead of everything else, because it’s the collective accumulation of the rights of the individual that really make up the rights of the group, which is the abstraction. So if you protect the rights of the individual in a society, which was pretty much done in early America, that is the best solution for greater good for the greater number, even though it’s not perfect. It always produces the maximum freedom, liberty, and success, but it’s not good for elites.

Alex Jones: Not good for elites. No, they’ve become very nervous about that.

G. Edward Griffin: So it’s a simple thing. One more example, maybe we’ll make it even more clear. One of the principles is that the collectivist believes that he gets his rights from the state. That when men sit down and write a constitution or a law, that they are giving him a right that he didn’t already have. They think that the state is the giver of rights. Individualists believe no, no, no, no, no. The individual is the giver of rights to the state. That’s the basis of—we believe that the governments, just governments anyway, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Everybody believes that.

Alex Jones: And you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence now. That’s what this is all about.

G. Edward Griffin: Yes, it’s everywhere, but people don’t understand it. They don’t think about it. You cannot have it any other way. If the state has to get its rights to do whatever it does from the people, if in a just society you want to live on a journey, that’s okay. Our whole system said no longer our rights come from the king, they come from God that is above the king, thus to us.

Alex Jones: Exactly. Yeah.

G. Edward Griffin: So that’s another principle. Now think about what that means. If the state gets its power from the people, that means that the state is going to be authorized to do only those things which the people themselves have the power to do, because if they are not as individuals allowed to do something, they can’t delegate something they don’t have to the state. That means what is the state? I mean, what is the individual allowed to use coercion for? The state, by the way, should be defined as the legalized use of force. It’s the legalized use of killing somebody. You can—we give the cops and the soldiers guns and say, go, we’re going to kill people. This is a severe serious topic. We better be sure what the limitations are that we’re giving to the government to use those guns.

So exciting to see what’s happening with so many people that are riveting hosts and talk show hosts and filmmakers and authors. They’re doing a great job, but they’re mainly only talking about the problems. I do that too. It was here, Griffin decades ago on the show, saying, Alex, you’ve got to focus more on the solutions. And I’m just like, well, it’s abated. Don’t do what they’re doing. Freedom, free market. Okay, we got to explain that to people because the enemy camouflages it so well.

So just in general, how would you describe the period of history we’re in right now? What are the bad future scenarios versus good future scenarios? And how do you think people can do the quickest of their new listeners or viewers? Just things are exploding. How do they get red-pilled the quickest? What’s the best avenue to go down?

G. Edward Griffin: Good question. That is the question, actually. Yeah, that’s how we actually started this interview. Is it in my optimistic or pessimistic and so forth? And I said, I am neither. I’m trying to be realistic. My realistic opinion is that we’re living in a period of great opportunity because it’s so crummy. The wheels are coming off of the system. It’s been a very comfortable system up until now. As long as it’s comfortable, most people are not unwilling to get serious about changing it.

The good side of this is you might say because of the bad side of it. Now we’re realizing how serious it is. When the food starts disappearing again or when major crises occur, that’s what they want. When we have multi-crises, people will be so upset and distracted they won’t know what the heck to do. They’ll be very helpless. They’ll just feel like it’s beyond them as individuals to do anything, which is basically true. But the question then is, well, how do you stop being an individual in addition to being an individual? How do we know the trap is at the point they create the crisis—the virus, the power outage, the cyber attack—we’re supposed to give our control to them and think what’s going to get better. It only gets worse.

You can be in a crisis. We know this—giving up your freedom at that crisis will only make it worse. That’s it exactly. But people don’t see it. All they see is the fear part. Oh my God, I’m running out of food. I think the fact that the wheels are coming off of the wagon now is causing a lot of people to look very carefully at this question. Well, what can we do?

Now, unfortunately, most people are still thinking in terms of how can we survive? As you mentioned earlier, I’ve given a lot of public presentations since 1960. I’ve had thousands of them. Usually there are some good questions that follow these presentations. Alex, I can tell you that not once in all that time has anyone asked me a question that I was hoping to hear. They always ask me a question: so what can I do to protect myself?

They always think about which is good, but the trick is they think as an individual, how do they protect themselves? We are individualists, but it’s going to be in mass us making political movements together that actually gets it out of it. They think of defense instead of offense.

Alex Jones: Exactly. That’s it. They—what can I do to protect myself? I’ve never had one person ask me, Mr. Griffin, what’s your plan for victory? How can we win this war?

No one is thinking about winning. Napoleon said the purely defensive is doomed to defeat. So that’s where we are, folks. We’re all thinking about how do we defend ourselves? How many people are thinking how can we attack?

The public has to believe that there is an honest struggle, a contest going on. They want—they have to be shown victory and defeat, victory and defeat. It’s back and forth. Oh, we’re winning. Oh, now we’re losing. Oh, we’re winning again. When in truth, both sides are in the hands of the elite, both sides. It’s all a show—not all, but I mean the major part of it is a show. The average person can’t get their head around that.

If you want to know what to do about it, you have to realize that a lot of people—15 percent of the population is a lot of people. If they get together and have a strategy, not just an ideology, but a methodology for recapturing political and social influence in their own country, it can be done. I can tell you I’ve participated in small groups. It works beautifully. I can tell you I stole every bit of it from our opposition. Those people are brilliant in how to influence and develop support. They do it by putting people together face to face and forming local groups all around the country, all around the world, you might say. We can do it if we have a strategy.

Bob Metz:
Before expressing my endorsement of Griffin’s proposed strategy, I’d like to first speak to his observation that the greater good for the greater number actually arrives when you put the individual ahead of everything else. While this observation is generally correct, it should never be misunderstood to imply that the greater good for the greater number is what justifies individualism and private pursuit of self-interest. Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith’s metaphor of the invisible hand has often been misinterpreted as being exactly that.

Quote: He intends only his own gain, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. End quote.

While this is so, if acting in one’s self-interest only benefited the individual and did not in itself promote the interests of society, then individualism still remains the moral imperative. Remember, society, quote-unquote, is a group abstraction that does not in and of itself even exist, making Adam Smith’s argument a completely irrelevant distraction. Although to be fair, he was reacting to the collectivist arguments of his day.

When Griffin asserted that the public has to believe that there is an honest struggle or contest going on, what he was describing, perhaps without intending it, was the creation of a true political polarity identified in terms of collectivists versus individualists—a philosophically based left and right.

As to his recommended strategy, he again has hit the nail on the head: a methodology of recapturing political and social influence in the community, working with small groups by putting people together face to face on their own local issues or broader agendas. Testifying that it can be done and that he has done so, working with small groups, Griffin pointed out how these successes were ironically based on strategies stolen from the opposition.

To discover what these strategies are, may I recommend a book that is hated by most people on the right. It’s called Rules for Radicals and was written by Saul Alinsky. You can skip the ideology, but embrace the strategy. That’s exactly what we did with Freedom Party, openly working through local groups like the No Tax for Pan Am Committee, the London Middlesex Taxpayers Association, Hold All Redundant Taxes, and others. Guess what? We won hands down on every one of those community efforts against whatever political opposition we were fighting. We ended union strikes, ended the prohibition of Sunday shopping across the province, defeated government-imposed and taxed business improvement areas in local communities across Ontario, and even won against an Ontario human rights tribunal that falsely accused a London landlord of racism against Asians.

But here’s the catch. You can always win all the battles but still lose the war. While the Freedom Party of Ontario openly and publicly backed all those campaigns, the political support we got for those successful campaigns did not translate into votes for the party. Most of those identifying as right or who backed the campaigns continued to vote Conservative—Progressive Conservative no less in Ontario—because of an electoral principle not yet mentioned.

Voters are very unaccustomed to voting for anything. For the most part, the thing that gets them out to vote is to vote against somebody. They will cast their vote for the party or candidate most likely to defeat an incumbent, even if ideologically no different than the incumbent.

Let’s not forget, it takes time, eternal vigilance, and consistency to change these habits. As we’ve discussed, a lot of pain and discomfort to actually get voters to change their voting habits.

So I hope by this point in our presentation you can understand why I so strongly identified both with Griffin’s political terms and definitions and with his suggestion for how to take effective political action. In the interests of exerting political and social influence in the community, one effect of action you can take is to join us again next week when we will continue our journey in the right direction.

Until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We’ll see you then.

Clip (Arielle Scarcella, April 10, 2026 – From Y2K to climate change):
In the 90s, people had maximum one problem, two worries. A lot of those worries were things like, oh, I’m not good enough at squash. You know, that’s the kind of thing we used to be concerned about. Yes, we did have one big worry. Yes, of course, the Millennium Bug. Yes, yes, we were worried about that.

They said to us, they said, the world is ending. That’s what they said to us. They said, we forgot to tell computers all of the dates. They said to us, we’ve told them up to New Year’s Eve, 1999, but no further.

What they said was, they said, on the stroke of midnight, they’re all going to stop working. They said, aeroplanes will fall from the sky. They said, incubators will start working. We were like, that sounds terrible. What can we do? They said nothing. And then we were like, all right, stick Robbie Williams on. Let’s make the best of it.

Anyway, January 1st, year 2000, we all woke up and we weren’t even dead. Not a single aeroplane fell on a single baby. So if you’re wondering why people my age and older aren’t doing enough about climate change, it’s because you got us last time.