France in crisis and the post-liberal right

0:00In a world full of lies and deception, it takes courage to speak the truth. In a nation held bent on its own destruction, it takes honor to seek return to glory. Join us in cutting through the lies. Join us in cutting through the propaganda. Join us as we seek the truth on cutting through the fog from the America Out Loud Network. And here's your host, Wallace Garnow. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to cutting through the chaos of the America Out Loud Network. We cut through the lies in the propaganda to bring you the out loud truth. I'm your host, Wallace Garnow, and I want to start today's show by talking about what's happening in France. I think this is more significant than most people are giving in front of you. And there are two people that I really want to focus on as I talk about what's happening in France. It's actually three people I want to really talk about. John Luke Melishon was the leader of the radical left movement La France in Somme, which is

1:04the French, which is gave France unbound and Fabien Russel, the leader of the French Communist Party, the third person is the person that I think they're really targeting this toward who is Marie Le Pen. She is the leader of resoundable Mont-Mascienal or National Rally RN, formerly known as National Front, which is the right wing nationalist party in France. One of the interesting things about right wing parties in Europe is that they're almost always called far right. National Rally is called far right. Alternative for Deutschland in Germany is called far right. They do the same thing that they do with conservatives here. They do that in Europe also. If you're not on the left, you're a fascist, you're a racist, you're a homophobic, you're all these terrible things. Islamophobic, you're all of the terrible things in the world. They just take all the labels and they throw them at you, like paint against the wall, hoping that something will stick.

2:06Now it's just like it is here, a lot of the things that are being said are not true. New example, something said that's not true here. Trump apparently said that he wants, I ran to Newk to American cities. San Diego and Los Angeles. That's just not true. I'll give you a quote of what Trump actually said. This is a direct quote. Trump said, I want to see a tremendous victory. You want to see a tremendous victory because it verifies all the things we did. And again, remember with the war, it's just artificial. It's a little bit high. It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city. Let them take, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay and it's going to be over with very soon. It's essentially almost over with. Now they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it. Let me tell you, they need it. But it's going to end very soon. Then it'll end one way or the other and your gas and your gasoline and all of the things.

3:08And don't forget, we also took out a country known as Venezuela. They never talk about that. They never talk about Venezuela. And we're taking it hundreds of millions of barrels of oil every week. We're pouring oil. We're pouring oil into this country like nobody's ever seen before. Now, the left takes that as Trump calling for Ellie and San Diego to get nuked. They take out a context just the two things. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. Trump basically was saying the same thing that I have said, which is the same thing that other people have said, which is that we will eventually have to deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The question isn't whether or not we have to deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The question is whether we do that before or after jihadists with many vans take out major American cities. Trump is taking care of Iran today. Let they do not blow up a major American city like Los Angeles or San Diego. But they hate Trump so much. They just take things out of context.

4:08They lie about what he says. And since he since he phrased it the way that he did, they're just pulling that out of context and saying that that he wants to take out LA and he wants to take out San Diego. Some people on Facebook, I see this going around Facebook from multiple people, multiple places. Some people are actually saying that Trump is going to nuked San Diego and Los Angeles and say that I ran did it as a pretext for staying in power. That of course, it's not going to happen. It's absolutely ludicrous and anybody would say that it would happen. But that's what they're saying about Trump here. And that's just the latest. Remember, very fine people on both sides. They lie and misrepresent what I call the war on words. They use the connotation of words. They ignore the denotation, the denotation being what the words actually mean. They take words to the negative connotation. They apply them at their opponents, the political right. And they just assume that everybody is all of these terrible things and throw those words out there until people believe they're true. While ignoring or changing the actual definitions, the denotations, those words.

5:12So if there's a word with a negative connotation that makes people feel bad, of course, that gets applied directly to the political right and it's applied directly to the political right constantly and without any regard for what the word actually means. And we've talked about this many times. How they redefine racism, how they use elements of fascism, but they don't actually use fascism as a thing. It's all bullshit. The political left weaponizing words in order to try to try to to ridicule and disparage and make people think bad things about their political opponent. So of course they do that to Marine Le Pen. She's called a racist in a homophob and in all of these terrible things. But really she's just kind of center right. She wants to control Francis Borders. She wants to decide who can immigrate to France and they're a bad actor's in France. She wants them to leave. She wants the French people. She wants France for French people and by French people she doesn't just mean white people. She means anybody who is a French citizen, but she does expect that French citizens want

6:15to be French and that they don't want an Islamic Republic of France. I don't know. You look at what's happening in France right now and it looks like France, I think a year ago, recognized a Palestinian state. I don't think they realized in recognizing a Palestinian state the capital is going to be Paris. But that is if you look at the news, if you watch the videos that people are posting on YouTube and what have you, that really is what it looks like. So you've got that. You've got those three people. You've got Rocella and Melanchon and then you've got Marine Le Pen from National Rally. Now Fabi Rocella is the actual Communist Party leader. He is the candidate for the 2027 presidential election. But he's not going to win the election. He's not going to even make it into the runoff. You're probably going to see Jean-Luc Melanchon, who is the leader of the Civil of France in Sommeil, which is a radical left movement. It's distinct from the Communist Party though. Now it's a Communist Party. They are that far left, but it's not the Communist Party. You've got two parties that are essentially Communist in France.

7:18And that's who is probably going to be in the runoff along with Marine Le Pen. So what's happening here is Fabi Rocella has advocated France moving beyond capitalism toward communism through a democratic transformation of society. But he has also been calling for a mass mobilization. He was calling for that before this current student movement even began. Now supposedly these protests started as complaints about French schools that were supposedly genuine grievances. These were saying that there aren't enough teachers that the schools are debilitated, that there's not enough spending on education in France. And that's what they're protesting about. It started outside of Paris, and a suburb of Paris. You know, shortage of teachers, overcrowded classrooms, and that sort of thing. But that's not really what it's about. September 17th was the first protest by October 8th and October 6th demonstrations in drawn 2666, 266,000 people, according to the government.

8:26Organizers claimed it was over 450,000, and hundreds of schools have been disrupted. Some schools have been set on fire. Some of the videos have buses on fire running down the street. No cars getting lit on fire. A lot of fires in France right now. They've had over 6,600 arrests since late September. There's been a lot of arson. There have been a lot of property attacks. There have been a lot of violent confrontations with the police. And the protesters are alleging serious police excessive force against minors. And well, it looks like it's getting worse rather than better. Some people are saying that this is essentially a revolution in its early stages. And it's not just a revolution of the French people. A lot of the people that are protesting are second and third generation migrants, migrant families. They're French citizens who are born in France, but they're largely Islamic. And they are, and they are, some of them are French citizens that are, they're French

9:33communist basically, but many of them are Islamic people who are maybe not immigrants themselves, but the children or grandchildren of immigrants. And you see a lot of Palestinian flags. Seems like that's a thing now. Anytime you have people doing things, they shouldn't be doing illegal things, riots. You seem to have Palestinian flags now front the center. That's almost like the Palestinian flag is the flag of the rioter. I don't know. But there's a lot of Palestinian flags in these protests. There are also French flags in the protest. And it's an interesting mixture of communists, far left people that maybe they don't call themselves communists and radical Islam, which gets into that whole red green alliance where the communists and the Islamists are working together to take down Western society. I don't know that I believe that there is an actual agreement between the communists, other left winged elements and Islam. I think it's just more the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

10:37And I've written about that too when I call standards available, competing moral frameworks which are fracturing the West. I've written about this in some detail. And what we have is we have multiple competing definitions of what constitutes good and evil. Moral frameworks. You've got of course the Christian moral framework, which you don't have to be a Christian subscribe to. I should say the Judeo-Christian moral framework. You don't have to be Jewish or Christian to subscribe to that. I think a lot of people are born and raised in Christian households. Judeo-Christian households. And they grow up with that morality and just accept it as what is moral. Then you also have an Islamic morality, which is very different than that. You also have secular morality or what they call moral relativism, which is very different from either of those things. And we can define those. If we look at Christian morality, Judeo-Christian morality for example, it's built around love. Jesus was asked which of God's commandments are the most important. Instead of answering with the commandment, he summarized all of God's commandments by saying two things. Love the Lord your God above all things and love your fellow mankind as you love yourself.

11:41So love God first above everything and love one another as much as you love yourself. We're supposed to be called by Jesus. We are called by not just by Jesus. This is Jesus summarizing Judeo-Christian morality, the moral teachings of Moses and the laws of Moses, the commandments. It's just him summarizing them as those two commandments. Love God above all things and love your fellow people as much as you love yourself. So that is how we define that is what we define morality is. That is a summary of the Christian Judeo-Christian moral framework. Islam has a very different one. It's also based around two things. One is submit fully to a law through strict adherence to Sharia law. That's the first one. Strict adherence to Sharia law which is submitting to Allah because supposedly Sharia comes from Allah. It is the law that Allah gave for all people to follow. So that's the first rule.

12:43The first head of Islam is false abyssin to Allah, strict adherence to Sharia law. And then the second is forcing others to do the same. So Islam is called upon. Islamic people are called upon to follow Sharia themselves in their own lives and to enforce Sharia upon others. Not just Islamic people either. If you read the Quran, I have read the Quran. It is very, very clear that they are called upon to enforce Sharia upon all the earth because it is Allah's law. Only Allah can make law. All laws of man are null and void because man is not empowered to make law. Sharia has to cover everything. That's basic Islamic tenet. So those are competing moral frameworks. The Judeo-Christian one is Christians in Jews don't force people into their religion whereas in Islam, that's what you're supposed to do. You are supposed to make other people Islamic. If you can convince them to become Islamic peacefully, cool. If you can't use force or you kill them.

13:45You make them a martyr. Rape is allowed in Islam under certain circumstances. Terrorism, of course, is allowed under Islam. You can use violence and force to try to force people into Islam. And when society contains multiple moral frameworks and they define evil in mutually exclusive ways, peace becomes impossible. I mean, how do we find evil in Christianity? We basically define evil as sin. But there are two kinds of sins. There are sin that only hurt you and there are sins that hurt society as a whole. Most Christian societies focus on having laws that ban sins that harm other people and leaving sins that only harm the sinner. We don't usually make those illegal. We usually leave that to God and for Jesus to judge. So we don't worry too much. If somebody wants to live a sinful lifestyle, but they're only hurting themselves, we can leave that between them and God. But if you steal, now you're hurting somebody else. So that's the sort of thing that we would ban. Well, in Islam, they ban lots of things. Women have to wear the burger in public, for example, things like that.

14:48So they're different in terms of the law and in terms of how they define evil. To Islam, the most evil thing that is possible is Western style freedom. Our standard, our way of life in Islam is considered very, very evil. And it's considered evil for a very logical reason. If the first tentative Islam is to submit fully to all law, through strict adherence to Sharia law, and the second tentative Islam is to force others to do the same, well, what do you say about a liberal society that allows people not to believe in God, not to follow Sharia, not to really follow any moral law other than don't hurt other people? How do you look at that? If you're an actual adherent of Islam, you read the Quran and you want to bring people closer to all law through strict adherence to Sharia law? Well, tell people they're free not to follow Sharia law. That's kind of the wrong answer false if you have that mindset. Matter of fact, tell people they're free not to follow Sharia is probably the most evil thing you can do in an Islamic mindset.

15:51They would say that allowing people not to follow Sharia, tolerating a lack of adherence to Sharia, separates people from all law and is the most evil you could possibly do. So for them, wear the burqa or we're going to have to make an example of you, follow all of the rules of Sharia and read the Quran if you want to know exactly what is in Sharia law, they don't hide it. And you'll see what kind of a society they are calling for people to live in and saying that good is forcing other people to live that way too because to them that's bringing you closer to Allah. And then, of course, moral relativism. I don't know what's good or evil and moral relativism. I don't know that anybody does because it kind of is a morality of the lowest common denominator, which in turn makes it a morality of nothing at all. It's not really immoral so much as amoral. It is a morality of the lowest common denominator. You might say murder is illegal, but even then, if your Islamic murder is acceptable in certain circumstances. So even something like murder is not something that a moral relativist can always agree

16:54on. No, people say, for example, how can Christians oppose abortion because you're killing an unborn child, you're killing an innocent life and we put an emphasis on innocent life. Well, Islam Hamas is very, very open about the fact that they will eventually win because they love death more than we love life. They see our love of life as a weakness. They see our love of life as something that they can exploit. They use human shields. They make sure that was the IDF comes in to go door to door trying to take out Hamas militants, killing as few civilians as possible. Well, they do everything they can to make the IDF kill as many civilians as possible. And then they inflate the numbers until about how many civilians have been killed. What they're doing is they're trying to turn the rest of the world against the IDF by making it look like Israel is killing a bunch of civilians indiscriminately, which is the opposite of the truth. But because we love life and we don't want children killed, either this Israel, by the way, because we love life, it's easy to weaponize our love of life.

17:57And what really scares me there is that we're on the verge of normalizing the practice of using civilians and particularly children as human shields. And look what's happening in France right now. And I mentioned what a violent revolution would look like if the side committing the revolution, the red green alliance, as people are calling it, imagine if they were more than happy to use civilians as human shields, fighting an active revolution in urban, in urban areas like, say, Paris and Marseille using human civilians as shields. Imagine how bloody of a civil war, something like that would be because now if you want to oppose the revolution, you're going to have to kill masses of civilians that they are intentionally using as shields. So that's what we're looking at. We're looking at societies that are containing multiple moral frameworks, all of which to fight evil in mutually exclusive ways, making peace impossible with each group seeing others not just as wrong, but as wicked.

18:59Now what we define as Christians, what we define as sin, progressivism may see as a virtue. And one of the interesting things about progressivism is that at one point they wanted, what we might have considered as sin, they wanted it to be legal unless somebody else was harmed. They would say, you know, victimless crimes should be legal. Prostitution should be legal, they would say. We should have, who drugs should be legal. And so you look at, you say, well, I've had sinful behavior, I don't know that it should be legal, but they're saying, well, excuse me, it's victimless, so it should be. Well, so a lot of people went along with that libertarianism went along with that, and we made many of those things legal. But then they said, well, wait a minute, that's not good enough. You made it legal for us to do these things, but you tell us we're wrong, we do it. You look down on us when we do it. Now we need rights for all of these different groups that are doing sinful activities. It's not enough for you just to allow us to do it in terms of it not being illegal. No, now you have to say that it's moral to do. You have to say that it's not just okay, but that we're going to have, we're going to

20:00have celebrations where we celebrate the commitment of sin and the right to commit sin and the people who are committing sin. We're going to glorify them and say that they are the good people and that those that want to say sin is sin, they're evil. This is, by opinion, this is the oldest lie ever told. If you look at what the serpent said to Eve, the serpent started out with, he started out with Yeheth, God said, he should not eat of every tree of the garden. Of course, Eve explains that God forbade them from eating the tree of the middle of the garden, warning if they would die, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And so then what is the serpent say? The serpent says, ye shall not surely die. And then comes the actual temptation. For God does know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as God's knowing good and evil. So the temptation here is human beings can become like God, the terribly good and evil for

21:01themselves rather than accepting God's authority. But there's actually more than that. There's actually something even deeper and more subtle than that and probably more dangerous in that lie. Really what the serpent was saying to Eve is the commital understand that the only sin that was available to Adam and Eve was eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was the only sin available to them. There's God put that there to give them the ability to commit sin, should they choose to do so, didn't want them to commit sin. But he wanted them to choose not just to be allowed to be without sin, but to choose to be without sin, to choose good over sin continuously. And to live in fellowship with him is as non-sinful creatures that were capable of choosing sin, but opted not to. So we had to give them something that they're not supposed to do. And what they were not supposed to do was eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So what is Satan saying or what is the serpent saying when he says that your eyes shall be open and ye shall be as God's knowing good and evil?

22:03Well, the most subtle way to put that is if you commit sin, it will elevate you. You are a better person for sinning. That is the oldest lie, the lie of the serpent to eat that is the oldest lie in creation. And that is the lie that is permeating the political left when they say that it is not enough for you to allow sin in terms of being legal. No, now you have to glorify it. Now abortion, it's not enough to say, okay, I understand. It's going to be hopefully very, very rare and it's going to be safe and it's going to be a last resort. But abortion will be legal because I get abortion is going to rovers as weight-rever. You can make the argument that you can make an argument that it is better to have abortion legal as long as it uses a last resort because women are going to seek abortions anyway and it's far more dangerous when they're illegal. So you can at least make the argument there.

23:05But the thing about that argument is that if we were to count abortion as a, if the CDC counted that as a cause of death, it would actually be the leading cause of death in America today. And I don't think if you were to go back to rovers as weight and tell the people that in 45 or 50 years that abortion would become the leading cause of death in America. That we'd abort so many children that more children, that there would be more death caused by abortion than by heart disease. I think the American people would have rejected that. But today they don't reject that. Today people glorify abortion and glorify the people that have had abortions. We are sacrificing babies too. Is it bail? Is that the God they sacrifice babies too? I believe it was bail. They're sacrificing babies to bail just like they did in the Old Testament, you know, thousands of years ago. And so that's what's happening. You have these competing moral architectures to of which you're now working together. Now consider the reaction of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

24:05And one moral system this was an act of political terrorism and horrifying evil that demands universal condemnation. But another it was portrayed as a righteous blow against fascism. Speech now is being called violence while actual violence is excused as justice. Law enforcement is undermined while criminality is reframed as activism. Churches are burned, statues are toppled and historical truths are erased, not in spite of a moral code but because of a different one. The West is not suffering from moral collapse so much as from moral conflict with multiple moralities competing for dominance in each seeing the others as evil. Now what happens if Islam defeats or if the green red alliance defeats the red green alliance, the red green alliance defeats the Western world, Western civilization? Well, then they turn against each other because they don't have the same morality either. They would immediately have to see each other as evil. You know, the socialist rifle association claves roughly 10,000 members nationwide. It offers fire arms trading transgender, Islamic and Marxist activists proclaiming that

25:09the means of production will not see themselves. It considers disagreement with its ideological tenets to be fascism. They are by granting itself carte blanche moral authority to act against opponents by any means necessary. 10,000 members nationwide. Now to put that in perspective, 10,000 is about the size of General George Washington's army when he successfully forced British General William Howe to evacuate Boston in March 17, 1776. Black Lives Matter maintains a core group of several thousand trained and coordinated organizers backed by millions of sympathizers and donors and millions of online followers. Anifah, though at Lacks' formal membership roles, operates to loosely organize cells and mobilizes rapidly through online coordination. Their structure may be defused, but the ideology is consistent and militant. The broader moral framework in the United States, well, you know, once it tethered hours aside and shared values, now it's fractured. We live in a country where 40% of Americans and 60% of those on the political left say

26:11that property destruction is a justifiable form of protest. Think about that. 60% of those on the political left say that property destruction is a justifiable form of protest and 40% of Americans over all. That's more than the percentage of Americans by the way that wanted to clear independence from the king in 1776. There's about a third of Americans that wanted that. 40% think that violence is that property structures are justifiable form of protest. More than half of those who identify with the modern left leave would be acceptable to assassinate Donald Trump, present the United States. And political murder is in the case Luigi Mangione is now sometimes praised. Luigi of course, gone down the CEO of a health insurance company and was then failed by online activists as a hero who was the woman who just strangled her children with exercise bands and so many people got on board and they wanted to make her a hero and

27:12what she did was kill her children. Well, when mainstream moral systems can no longer agree on what constitutes evil or worse, when evil becomes redefined as virtue, depending on who commits it. There's a lot of that going on too. Well, the civil society becomes impossible to sustain. That breakdown of shared moral language is a crisis playing out and shattered storefronts, political assassinations and now across France and Belgium. It's spread to Belgium. Apparently, it's also spreading the United Kingdom. And that's just the start. But the fact of the matter is that what is happening in France is it's a warning blow. It's not even I don't think this is even the real event. I think this is a warning. I think that what Fabian Roussell and Jean-Luc Melancheon, I think the message that they're sending to the French people and I think they'll make this more explicit when they get closer to their election in 2027. I think the message is if you elect Marine Le Pen who is leading in the polls by the way, what you're seeing with these protests is just the start.

28:13What we're going to do is going to be a hundred times worse than that. We are going to become ridiculously violent and we are going to destroy this society by any means necessary. Now if you listened a few weeks ago to the show on long-tail terrorism and long-tail activism, I think you can see with modern technology and drones, for $5,000 you can get a drone that will go five miles and carry 20 pounds. You can put a lot of explosives on the drone with 20 pounds. I think the level of destruction that people can commit now is so high and so cheap that that's what we should really be scared of because that is the true message that they're sending. They're not sending the message that we want more money for schools. They're sending the message that if you don't elect us, if you elect Marine Le Pen, if you try to save your country through the vote, we are going to destroy it through political violence. We're going to destroy it with violence on the street. This is just the start. We can do a hell of a lot more than this.

29:14We have the numbers. We can bring out hundreds of thousands of people, all of which are willing to commit acts of violence and you do not want to see the pain and destruction that we will reign upon our own republic if you don't give us what we want. That's what we're seeing in France. What they're saying is if you don't vote us in, we're going to take power by other means and those other means are going to be absolutely hellscapes. These are people that are normalizing the use of civilians as human shields. So I want you to think about how horrific of a situation we are on the verge of witnessing in France. If it starts in France and is successful in France, it's going to be copied elsewhere. That is what we're looking at. That is what we're facing. That is what we should be concerned with. That is why it is so important that the French government, they're not going to do much. Manuel Cron is, he's not going to do much. At some point he will because the French people start threatened to take it into their own hands and to put down these protests themselves.

30:16When that happens, all of a sudden the French government is going to grow some balls and put the protests down. It's going to take that to do it. It's going to take them being afraid of civilians putting down the protests for the government to get it into it. What we're witnessing potentially being normalized is that is what we should truly be scared of. This isn't just about schools. This is about radically destroying Western society and doing it by any means necessary. Violence included. With that, ladies and gentlemen, it's time for work from our sponsors. You can reach our sponsors directly by going to AmericaOut Loud.News slash shop or by clicking the shop button on the top of the website and don't go anywhere. We still have a lot to go over on the other side of the break. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, are you ready? As your nose is about to witness the biggest breathing breakthrough on planet Earth, introducing Clear nasal spray built on saline fueled by xylitol. It rolls through your sinuses and crushes congestion into dust, bacteria, viruses.

31:20They don't even make it past the starting line. Clear. Shots them down. No drugs. No rebound. Just draw unstoppable daily breathing power. Go to Clear.com. Right now, that's xylacr.com. Before your nose misses out on the greatest spray in the universe. Clear. Breathe better. Live better. Successful weight loss is about changing the gut-brain relationship with food. I'm Dr. Kelly Victory with the Wellness Company. If you don't like needles, you'll love oral dissolving terzepotide RX. Works by targeting the GOP1 and GIP receptors that influence appetite and metabolism. And unlike injections, these are fast, absorbing, sublingual tablets placed under the tongue, paired with an energy boost of B6 and B12. Visit TWC.health slash out loud and use code out loud for an exclusive discount. During treatment, the structure of tap water gets messed up. Yes, we have to purify water, but what are we doing to fix the water structure so the

32:21body can actually absorb it? That is why we created our lab-certified structured water devices. These devices restore water molecules back to their natural structure just like a mountain stream, making them highly absorbable. It's not how much you drink, it's how much you absorb that counts. Better hydration, better energy all day. Get one for your home or on the go at chemicalfreebody.com, forthslash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com forthslash out loud. Are you looking for healthy snacks, but you've had enough of all this sweet sugary energy bars? Good news. There's a new bar to try that's savory, crunchy and packed with goodness. Beer bars are based on just six simple natural ingredients, a certified organic veggie nut and seed bar that's low temp dried, never baked or fried. Beer bars are plant-based, gluten-free and loaded with nutrients and protein. Head over to beerbore.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud listeners. That's B-E-A-R-B-A-R dot com forward slash out loud. Well, it's high time Americans refuse to be pawns in the human chest.

33:24Under the name of diversity, politicians divide the people in their quest for power. No diversity, opinion and expression is as American as apple pie. Now is our time, my fellow Americans, America Out Loud dot news, liberty and justice for all. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. Cutting to the chaos in the America Out Loud network. I'm your host Wallace Gardo. On the other side of the break I talked about France. It was happening there. On this side of the break I want to talk a little bit about, I want to talk about our midterms and what about. I'm going to make a prediction about what I think is going to happen in the midterms. The spectator ran an article recently arguing that libertarianism is dead. Nobody serious according to spectator still believes in free markets or unqualified liberty. Everyone, according to the spectator, understands that markets need to be used for the common good and that people exist not for their own selfish needs but for the common good as

34:28well. Everyone understands that according to the spectator. Supposedly, the Marco Rubio, who I would say is probably the most important person in terms of saving the enlightenment cause. It was a chance to be president. Understands the days of liberty have come to their logical end and that the American experience has failed. Now, J.D. Vance, I can tell you. He believes this. He just published a whole book titled Com Comunion About It. I read him. And actually, I'm white Rose Megas. He wrote a book report on it. Not a book report. A book review of it. You can read that if you don't want to read his book. It wasn't a bad book. I'll tell you that right up front. It was not a bad book. It was well written. But what I say is that it was a political justification. It didn't go to an up-depth on policy to say that it's like anything like a manifesto. But it is a justification disguised as a Christian apologetic disguised as a conversion memoir. And it's, it's, it's, it's really trying to justify his version of American, what he considers American conservatism, which is about how the American experiment has supposedly

35:31failed to provide the common good and thus we need to rebuild the United States into something else. Now, interestingly, the United States is also the richest and most powerful country in human history. And it just hit its highest mark ever for inflation and just an income. That's true, whether you measure by average income or median income. We are richer today than we have ever been as people and as workers. Apparently, the spectator does not consider that relevant when discussing the common good, but it sounds pretty good to me. Also me, I run a website called the Daily Libertarian, so color me somewhat what the spectator calls unserious. I don't want to give the spectator the power to define the common good, and nor do I want to give that to JD Vance. I still think we have a right to define what good means on our own in our own individual lives. But that doesn't mean the spectator is entirely wrong. Ben Shapiro, for example, now uses a fish hook or even a horseshooter, note the left right political spectrum with the political right beginning to look very much like the

36:33political left once he moved far enough over. And though I don't generally disagree with Ben Shapiro, in this case, I do. I don't think the correct left right spectrum runs from totalitarianism on the left to anarchy on the right. I do think that the correct left right spectrum runs from totalitarianism on the left to anarchy on the right. And though one can argue that Karl Marx believe communism would lead with state without government, his vision was not anarchy. Marx believe communism would organize itself in such a way that the government would become unnecessary, but that is a self-sustaining organization, which is very different from anarchy. The political left right spectrum still stands to me with totalitarianism on the extreme left and anarchy on the extreme right, but that only captures one aspect of political philosophy. There are other aspects of political philosophy. I think it's the most important one in terms of looking at where people are politically, because it's the one that distinguishes types of government based on power. But there are other forms. Human beings aren't sovereign atoms.

37:35We inherit obligations before we are capable of choosing them. We inherit a culture and we inherit a language. Civilization requires individuals who voluntarily shoulder responsibilities they never invented. So the question is for what things is government responsible and for what things are we as citizens responsible for outside of government. Now to me the government only is two roles in the economy. The first is to promote and protect market efficiencies, and the second is to provide for those legitimate societal needs that run counter to market efficiencies. The first role is the big one, and even when performing the second role, which is societal needs, not individual or group needs, the government should always act in ways that keep the markets as efficient as possible. The second role I guess would include things like police and fire protection, national defense, building roads, ensuring that the environment is not polluted. But again, the goal is to minimize market intrusions. It is not to take over industries.

38:35I also agree that there is such a thing as the common good. I just don't want the government to define it as doing so presupposes the power to then try to create it. I also think that those who blame individualism for the end of the common good, which JD Vance does, are missing the mark. Now individualism it inevitably leads to the concept of your rights and where my rights begin, which is reciprocal. That implies the morality of a quality under the law and of mutual benefit. That allows a government to create and force laws, it prevents them from fringing on one another's rights. But it also presupposes that there are some things that are immoral but outside the power of government to mandate. Some sin is outside the purview of government and must be left for God to judge. What I guess I'm getting to is that the right is no longer just one thing. You also have the alt-right or the alternative to the right. Richard Spencer coined that term.

39:36But what he really meant, and we didn't mean the actual right, what he actually meant is something on the right or something other than the right rather than opposed the left, an alternative to the right. He wasn't right wing. He was very, very much not right wing, but he wanted an alternative to the right that opposed the left. Suffice it to say that there can be multiple alternatives to the right and that Richard Spencer's white nationalism is only one of them. Really the left created Richard Spencer by the way by focusing so heavily on intersectionality and predominantly on racial intersectionality with white people as the oppressive majority that they all put asked for a white supremacist or white nationalist like him to emerge. The more the left looked at white people and said you were the bad guys, the more they were encouraging a mere image of themselves, it would go beyond saying no we are not. And the thing is, if you look at Richard Spencer or the newer version of him, Nick Fuentes, they would fit in very well on the political left if they only flipped their preferred racial hierarchy.

40:36As I said, several times on the out right, if you blindfold Alexander, Alexander, Echaesier Cortes and Nick Fuentes, they might even fall in love. I've also said that Nick Fuentes followers of the political equivalent of an island of misfit toys. We need to speak to them fairly, but with compassion, as some of them can likely be saved. Going back to JD Vance though, he's a different kind of alt right. He's laying the groundwork to vision and he stops short of making his specific policy proposals. So he doesn't actually tell you specifically what he's going to do, but he's very, very clearly trying to take the powers of government and and use them to create a country in the image that he sees is correct. He is a post liberal and post liberalism is not post leftism, but post classical liberalism or post enlightenment. He might even call JD Vance a post conservative as he wants to do away with everything that a true conservative wants to preserve.

41:37JD Vance does not hide the fact that he is a post liberal. He has publicly identified himself with a post liberal right and his conversion to Catholicism in 2019 gave him an intellectual framework, which we interpret the economic and social problems that he had already spent years talking about. He wrote that he has been looking for a worldview capable of understanding human behavior as simultaneously individual and social as well as moral and structural and if all of us isn't provided him with that. His economic views follow. He's sceptical of free trade, globalization, large corporations and the idea that voluntary market outcomes are best. These are social conservatism needs a broader vision of political economy and the common good. Catholic post liberal similarly argue the economic freedom and that it must be judged according whether it produces the kind of families, communities and nation they believe society requires. Market cease being mechanisms to which individuals pursue their own interests and become instruments whose outcomes can should be encouraged, discouraged or redirected according to the conception

42:40of the common good. Under the common good is a recurring theme in post liberal circles and we should be concerned about that as requires someone to define what the phrase means. Post does not want to reduce government power. He wants to broadly expand it and then use that power to rebuild our country into his own personal vision of what he thinks society should look like. His views on liberal, on personal liberty follow. Post liberals believe liberalism's emphasis on individual autonomy is produced atomization, weaker families, weaker communities, declining religious authority, collapsing birth rates and people increasingly detached from duties to one another. Vance consequently emphasizes obligation, family, community, nation and social stability. Post liberals view government as paternalistic almost like a national parent and wanted to have broad powers to manage and control the population. That is in direct opposition to the concept of personal liberty.

43:42He has not endorsed Catholic integralism. He is not somebody who wants to force you to be a Catholic. Though he does say that the Catholic Church has shaped his view of what a good society is and what the common good means. So you take that for what it will. He is eventually going to have to talk about that in terms of policy, did not do it in his book. But this is relevant here because the leftist is also gone through a transformation. I have actually been writing about this since Trump first took office in 2017. The left is fracturing between, it is becoming an anti-America party. You still have some people like Bill Maher that are classical liberals on the left. But it is becoming more and more a fractured party of anti-American interests such as the democratic socialists, such as actual communist, which really the democratic socialists are. They just dance around it. Sometimes they will come right out and say that they want communist.

44:43Some other times they will have various ways of saying they are communist. Let us just be honest about that. They are communist that in most cases don't want to adopt the word. But there are those who do. So those are two groups. The democratic socialists, the communists and then of course you have Islamists. You have the growing Islamic population in the United States. And the favor of the Islamists on the political left. Now these groups can get along even though they should hate each other with very different senses of morality. In Islam for example you kill gay people but then you have queers for Palestine. It would seem like that doesn't work. But they view the world through an oppression, oppressed lens through which they don't believe in agency. They don't believe that we are as Richard Dawkins call this meat machines that are controlled by DNA and lived experience. And if you believe that that we don't actually make decisions, we just have complicated

45:43brains that are actually computers that have lived experiences for data and DNA is programming. Well, then you can predict anything somebody will do based upon their DNA and based upon the lived experiences that they have had. And in such a scenario, information stops being about truth or knowledge and starts being about putting data into the meat machines that will make them perform in an optimal way. Not only that but if you look at, you know, when you see societies that are doing bad things such as some Islamic society, they would look at that and they would say, well, it's not because they're bad people. There's no such thing as a bad, they just meat machines. They are acting on the oppression that the Western world has been applying to them now for a very long time. And if we just remove the oppression and make them equal to us, we just elevate them to our level, then they'll stop acting that way. What we have to do is we have to fill the meat machines with the data that will get them to operate optimally.

46:45And then in order to have a better world, what we have to do is we have to alter the demographics of the world until every society looks exactly the same. And then if we get rid of the oppression while migrating people around the world so that every society is the exact same demographic mix, then all of the problems who go away and the magical utopia will emerge. This is kind of what is becoming the organizing principle of the left. And the thing about an organizing principle or a moral framework, which is I guess what I'm describing, is that you don't have to have everybody understanding all of it. You can have a very, very fractured moral framework where different people understand different parts of it. The dog is a unified whole is out there. And as long as some people do understand the unified whole, the mob will tend to operate on that whole. So it's not necessary for everybody to read the God delusion by Richard Dawkins or to understand how the loss of agency is such an important aspect of modern leftism before that to be

47:49a large part of modern leftism. I had somebody tell me my views on Dawkins are, my views aren't wrong. My views on the lack of agency, they said, what are you really doing is you're giving a moral framework for Marxism by saying that we're meat machines. And I said, well, I have to actually mention Marxism in that context. Marxism has got nothing to do with Richard Dawkins. What I'm saying is that certain things follow from the belief that we are meat machines that have no agency such as that if you fill people with the right data and they will behave in predictable ways such that you don't have to worry about Islam having a different moral system than Christianity or the Judeo-Christian world or moral relativism because if you fill the meat machines with the right data, they will begin to operate optimally. So you have now, as you have a political left that is fracturing where much of it is set on that and then you have some people who don't have a political home anymore on the left. Like for example, Bill Mar, they're looking at the craziness and saying, I can't go for

48:49that. But at the same time, he doesn't want to vote for you. He got people on the left that look at them and say, okay, those guys are whacked, but the problem with them being whacked isn't that they're whacked. It's that they might lose elections. And the point of all of this in terms of getting to a prediction of what's going to happen is that the political left has largely made it said in order to win a primary you have to be unelectable in a general election. El Sayad, for example, here in Michigan, Abdul El Sayad, he should not be electable in Michigan. He should not be really electable in much of the country at all. Because Ran Mamdani should not have been electable. He unfortunately was running against somebody who just had a major sex scandal and was kicked out of office, you know, in in with this tale between his legs. So he was a very, very weak candidate that he was running against. But still an actual, you know, somebody who says that the government's job is to provide for the people that is not somebody to a life of dignity said is the government's job is to give you the things you need to live a life of dignity. That is the purpose of government. The guy should not be electable in the biggest city in the United States of America, a free

49:54market country should not be electable. But the reason why I think that my earlier prediction on the I do think that the left is going to underperform. I still think they're going to underperform in this election, but it might not be as much as I would have said a couple of years ago, because it's fracture on the right with JD Vance and the anti-liberals and the post-liberals. That is is happening much, much, much faster than I could have ever predicted. I didn't know JD Vance, by the way, was a post-liberal when he was running for the presidency. I honestly really liked JD Vance when Trump picked him as a running mate. Not only see highly intelligent, the master debater, he destroyed Tim Walls without even insulting him, but he's also a fellow Marine. And I just assumed that as a Republican, he had political views similar to my own. I actually saw him as a great communicator, kind of like the next Ronald Reagan. But I was wrong. I was wrong. JD Vance is not like that at all. JD Vance is what I would call a post-conservative.

50:55What is a conservative? What are we conserving? Well, we are conserving Western society through classical liberal enlightenment values. If you are against classical liberalism, if you are against enlightenment values, you're not really on the right. You might be on the right some way, social values and things like that, but you're not on the right in terms of personal liberty, and that is what the heart of the political right is. So when Ben Shapiro says the true political spectrum is a fish hook or a horseshoe, well, he's referring to the way people like JD Vance, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fwent, seem to hook back toward the political left. And he's not imagining that. But he is mistaken to lump such people into the political right. They are very much an alternative to it. Relating to the political right only in that they hope to gain our support. But I'm telling you, we should not give it to them. American Vance is telling his lost family stability, religious belief, cultural confidence, national solidarity, and the moral framework to sustain those things.

51:59Government-according to Vance cannot just sit back and hope those things return. Political and economic power must instead be used to help recreate the conditions in which the preferred culture can flourish. And to the degree this is incompatible personal liberty, personal liberty should not exist. That is what Vance believes. I would say that that is, I've said Elizabeth Warren is a fashion for years. I've written that Elizabeth Warren is a fascist in a number of times. Also Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden. I was talking about economic fascism. A fascism like common is going to be split between the political side of it and the economic side of it. The economic side is total government control over the economy but with it nominally in private hands. In other words, somebody owns the company, is allowed to have profit. Government controls the profit but they're allowed to profit from it such that they are incentivized to run the company. Well, employees are paid. It's not Marx's two-all according to their, from all the court of their abilities, two-all according to their needs. No, you get paid and if you do a good job, you get paid more. But again, government control and it's an incentive system only.

53:02Fascism as an economic system is essentially socialism modifies what might actually work with profit as an incentive and pay as an incentive but heavily controlled by government. FDR tried to bring that here in his National Recovery Act and National Recovery Administration but was largely shot down by the Supreme Court. He tried to stack the court but he failed. Well, Elizabeth Warren, which she wrote her accountable capitalism act, which thankfully is never passed, that's just a retreat of Roosevelt's National Recovery Act and Roosevelt's National Recovery Act. He got that by setting people to study Mussolini's Italy and come up with a way that he could have that power here. That he could manage our economy. Anyway, Mussolini was managing Italy's economy. So that was fascism. But he wasn't accepting the political side of fascism so much as the economic side of fascism. We have this weird thing now where we're beginning to see with people like JD Vance, a kind of fascism on the right and actual fascism. I don't say that.

54:02I say that descriptively. If it's insulting, of course it's insulting but I don't mean it is insulting. I accept that but I'm not really saying it and my intent isn't to insult so much as to explain. I'm saying it in an descriptive way, not insulting way. Anyway though, it's kind of a fascism on the right where he wants some of the economic powers of fascism, maybe not all of them but some of them, but definitely the political power of fascism in order to create the society that he wants. All of these groups also have a problem in that the left that is and the right part of it. In that they want society to look like something if the majority does not want. They both want that. That we can zem politically but it also means that they cannot expect to take power through purely democratic means. Now they could think once we take power to running the institutions, we can create through control of education and the media. The left has been doing for the last several generations that you could then reverse that

55:05and use the same institutions to make people conservative again. There's a belief that you might be able to mold a majority once you have power but I don't think either of those groups truly believe they are going to gain power strictly through democratic means, at least not honestly. They might not delight in the public, they'll have to do all kinds of different things to get support and then maybe they can get hit when they're there. I think it has grown more, I think that this anti-Americanism on the left has grown more than post-liberalism on the right at this point. Otherwise post-liberalism is the greatest gift the political right could have ever given the left because it allows them to, it splits the right as a group. Some people who should vote for a conservative are not going to because it's not the kind of conservative they want to vote for. They'll want alt right instead of actual right. And so we're seeing a split now in the conservative movement that gives an opening for the extreme left to win maybe more seats than the otherwise would have.

56:06They may have taken one side or one house, they may take the house or the senate though, I don't think they'll take both and they may underperform even more like what I thought a couple of years ago. We'll see, I don't think they're going to take both houses, I don't think they're going to have a big lead in either house. We'll see what happens, it's going to be an interesting election. Just like that is the end of our time. We got through the I wanted cover though, we talked about the first half of the show, we talked about what's going on in France, second half we talked about the mid-term, it's in the splitting of the parties. As always thank you for tuning in, please tell others who might be interested in cutting through the chaos to listen in either on Saturday and Sunday at 9 a.m. Eastern Standard time or on podcasts whenever they have time. And we'll see you next week at the same time in place where we'll once again be time to get involved and to get loud on America out loud.