Bots, Grifters, and Rage: How Extremists Are Hijacking Conservatism | Karys Rhea

Summary

Episode Overview

Title: Bots, Grifters, and Rage: How Extremists Are Hijacking Conservatism
Host: Congressman Dan Crenshaw
Guest: Karys Rhea — political commentator, author, former Epoch Times and Newsmax journalist
Date: January 15, 2026

This episode explores how extremist movements and online manipulation are infiltrating and fracturing the conservative movement in America. Dan Crenshaw and Karys Rhea discuss the rise of the “woke right,” the role of social media bots and grifter personalities, the ecosystem of outrage incentivized online, and the vital importance of gatekeeping conservative principles. They highlight the dangers of conspiratorial and identitarian thinking, address figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, and reflect on the vital need for renewed critical thinking and civic engagement.

---

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Defining the “Woke Right”

• Both speakers discuss the emergence of a “woke right” — a faction on the political right that mirrors many tactics and emotional frameworks of the far left.

• Dan Crenshaw (02:04):

  “The woke right and the woke left...they wear different colored jerseys...but they think the same.”

• Shared traits between woke right and woke left:

  • Emotional reasoning over logic
  • Single-variable analysis: simple answers to complex problems
  • Us vs. them mentality rather than focusing on principles or policies
  • Paranoia about betrayal within their own ranks
  • Identity politics and victimhood mentality

• Karys Rhea (03:47):

  "They're essentially organizing political and cultural life on an intersectional hierarchy where certain people are oppressed and entitled, and others are oppressors... That’s antithetical to conservativism, which is about individualism and liberties."

---

2. Identitarianism and the Groypers

• Discussion about “right-wing identitarianism” (not traditional conservatism) and its infiltration of the MAGA movement.

• Reflection on the Charlie Kirk incident and the harassment by “groypers”—young men pushing hard-right, often antisemitic views.

• Dan Crenshaw (07:02):

  “...They went after me a lot. They went after Ben Shapiro a lot. They went after Charlie Kirk a lot. And then they kind of died off until recently, because of good old Tucker.”

• The guest describes how the reemergence and legitimization of these extremists was aided by figures like Tucker Carlson and the opening of X (formerly Twitter) by Elon Musk:

  • Banned voices migrated from fringe sites (Gab, 4chan) to X
  • Algorithm and monetization mechanisms privilege outrage content (08:11–08:58)

---

3. Bots, Social Media Manipulation, and Outrage Incentives

• Widespread use of bots and paid engagement manipulates perceptions of popularity online, often amplifying extremist voices and rage-bait content.

• Nick Fuentes’s social media following is suspected to rely heavily on bot farms in Pakistan and Nigeria (12:10–12:28).

• Even with certain controls, automated and semi-automated “bot” activity continues, complicating the information ecosystem.

• Karys Rhea (11:34):

  "Bots, obviously, is one of the biggest problems we face... It's one of the most challenging."

• Dan Crenshaw (12:28):

  "...There's a way to pay those kind of bot farms... It's good that it's being exposed."

---

4. Gatekeeping vs. Cancel Culture in Conservatism

• Urgent need to clarify the difference between healthy gatekeeping (defining boundaries of a movement) and destructive cancel culture.

• Gatekeeping is about principle, not punishment over disagreement on mainstream positions.

• Karys Rhea (13:21):

  “Conservatives have principles. We're not going to let people in...”

• Critique of conservative figures failing to perform real gatekeeping, and the dangers of letting people with fundamentally different values claim the conservative mantle (i.e., Tucker Carlson’s foreign policy positions).

---

5. Modern Grifters and the Monetization of Outrage

• Growth of media personalities who “grift” — capitalizing on outrage, controversy, and division for attention and monetary gain

• Many of these leaders (Tucker, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes) are described as potentially not believing their own radicalism, but fanning flames for profit.

• Dan Crenshaw (26:07):

  "People like [Candace] and Tucker... know from a business perspective that they can corner a certain market. And that 5% you talked about. Yeah, it's not nothing."

• Karys Rhea (31:27):

  “Well, it's the grift. The grift is real. There's a lot of temptation to become a grifter... when you're in the podcast to Stan space.”

---

6. Radicalization, Populism, and Loss of Critical Thinking

• Recognizing the convergence of radical right and radical left tactics (the “horseshoe theory,” where both extremes resemble each other)

• The greatest threat: loss of critical thinking, susceptibility to populism and conspiratorial thinking

  • Many leaders and followers display reactionary, emotion-based populism rather than reasoned debate
  • Former leftists now leading far-right movements without any true change in mindset (Candace Owens as a given example)

• Dan Crenshaw (30:49):

  “The greatest threat is our own country not being able to think critically... Critical thinking is antithetical to what we talked about on the Woke Left and Woke Right.”

---

7. The Need for Renewed Conservative Principles and Civic Engagement

• Conservatives must revisit and actively define what values and principles distinguish them from both the woke left and radicalized right factions

• Discussions behind the scenes and publicly are needed to clarify “What is a conservative?”

• Traditionally, conservatism is about defending Western civilization’s founding principles, not just being anti-left.

• Dan Crenshaw (24:20):

  “A basic defense of Western civilization. People, sometimes they'll ask, well, the conservatives, what are you trying to conserve?... The founding principles.”

• Karys Rhea (23:35):

  “We need to start having discussions...what are our values? What does it mean?... What do we believe in?”

---

8. Debunking Conspiratorial Thinking & The Use of ‘Establishment’ Rhetoric

• Critique of over-simplistic narratives about the “establishment” and shadowy cabals

• Emphasis on the reality of bureaucratic bias, not grand conspiracy

• Dan Crenshaw (35:00): [Thought experiment about “anti-establishment” candidates]

  “If there's an establishment that's all powerful, then how the hell is that guy winning?”

• Both agree: there are institutional biases and entrenched interests, but the cartoonish vision of a small all-powerful cabal is dangerous, fuels antisemitism, and distracts from real problems.

• Karys Rhea (36:03):

  “It's not the organized conspiracy that people think it is... it's a bunch of people who live in bureaucracy with bias.”

---

9. Responsibility, Accountability, and the Information Tsunami

• Social media and online information overload have made genuine accountability and personal responsibility difficult.

• Calls for a return to personal civic duty, honesty, and responsible speech in public discourse.

• Community Notes on X (formerly Twitter) is cited as a positive step toward correction—though insufficient alone.

• Karys Rhea (28:30):

  “We are not designed... to process so much information... there's so much information in the ecosystem. So people can kind of get away from... saying whatever they want.”

---

Notable Quotes by Timestamps

• On emotional reasoning and simplicity (02:04–02:38, Dan Crenshaw):

  “They want simple answers for complex problems... single variable analysis... us versus them mentality.”

• On victimhood culture (03:47, Karys Rhea):

  “They're essentially organizing political and cultural life on an intersectional hierarchy in which certain people are oppressed and thus the most entitled...”

• On the effect of bots (11:34, Karys Rhea):

  “Bots, obviously, is one of the biggest problems we face, and I think it's one of the most challenging problems.”

• On the need for gatekeeping (13:21, Karys Rhea):

  “Conservatives have principles. We're not going to let people in.”

• On distinguishing gatekeeping from cancel culture (14:21, Dan Crenshaw):

  “But gatekeeping is a very different thing... It's like, OK, so what if somebody is for 99% of what Democrats are for, but they say they were Republican? We just let them in?”

• On Tucker Carlson and shifting labels (15:47–16:06, Karys Rhea):

  "He's like a post constitutional guy... Don't gaslight us into making us call you something that we... don't see."

• On the culture war's impacts on youth (20:09, Karys Rhea):

  “Almost all of them are telling me anecdotally that they are seeing this stuff in their churches... particularly the young.”

• On the need for foundational principles (24:20, Dan Crenshaw):

  “A basic defense of Western civilization... the founding principles.”

• On the grift ecosystem (31:27, Karys Rhea):

  “The grift is real. There's a lot of temptation to become a grifter... in the podcast to Stan space.”

• On critical thinking as democracy’s shield (30:49, Dan Crenshaw):

  “The greatest threat is our own country not being able to think critically... Critical thinking is antithetical to what we talked about on the Woke Left and Woke Right.”

• On conservatism’s red lines (23:35, Karys Rhea):

  “At the end of the day, we have to assert our red lines... What does it mean?... What do we believe in?”

---

Important Timestamps

• 02:04–03:47: Defining the “woke right” and its characteristics
• 05:05–07:02: Groypers, Charlie Kirk, and identitarian infiltration
• 07:07–08:58: How Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk aided reemergence of extremists
• 10:03–12:40: The power and mechanics of bots and manipulated engagement
• 13:21–15:49: Gatekeeping versus cancel culture; Tucker Carlson's ideological shift
• 16:25–18:43: How alt-right figures infiltrated MAGA and the movement's transformation post-Israel crisis
• 20:09–21:12: Impact of these shifts in real-world communities, especially youth
• 23:35–24:20: The urgent need for renewed conservative gatekeeping and principles
• 30:49–31:55: The loss of critical thinking and the dangers of grifting
• 34:05–36:03: Establishment rhetoric and dangers of metaphysical conspiracy theories

---

Tone and Style

The episode is conversational but passionate and urgent. Both Crenshaw and Rhea are measured, articulate, and analytical while mixing personal anecdotes, humor, and stark warnings. The tone is direct but avoids hyperbole, emphasizing the seriousness of the issues facing the conservative movement while calling for honesty, critical thinking, and renewed civic duty.

---

Final Takeaways

• The American right is facing an infiltration by extremism, fueled by social media rage, bots, and figures who profit from polarization and victimhood narratives.
• Renewed gatekeeping—distinguishing genuine conservative principles from imposters and reactionaries—is urgently needed.
• Conservative leaders and citizens alike must rediscover and defend their philosophical roots, resist conspiratorial and simplistic thinking, and strive for critical, nuanced engagement both online and in real-world communities.
• The greatest threat is not foreign powers but the American public’s decreasing ability to discern, debate, and think critically.

---

Listen for:

• The psychological and strategic analysis of how both “woke” extremes operate
• The practical impacts of outrage culture on youth and political institutions
• Calls for a redefinition and reaffirmation of core conservative values
• Insight into the dangerous monetization of rage and manipulation online

---

Episode Recommendation:
This timely conversation is essential listening for anyone concerned about the future of American conservatism, the perils of digital manipulation, and the restoration of principled political life.

Transcript

[A]

We hold these truths to be self.

[B]

Evident that all men are created. As a member of Congress, I get to have a lot of really interesting people in the office, experts on what they're talking about. This is the podcast for insights into the issues. China, bioterrorism, Medicare for all in depth discussions, breaking it down into simple terms. We hold.

[A]

We hold.

[B]

We hold these truths.

[A]

We hold these truths.

[B]

With Dan Crenshaw, the eagle has landed. Welcome back everybody, to hold these truths. Today we have joining us Karis Rayeth. Karis, thanks for being on.

[A]

Pleasure to be here with you.

[B]

Thank you. So a little bit about Karis, American political commentator, previously worked at the Epoch Times and Newsmax. Right. And writing a book on how right wing identism is fracturing the maga movement. And you know, You've argued since 2022 that there's a woke right that has emerged mirroring the tactics of the woke left. Aragualto mirroring the, the kind of brain circuitry of the, of the woke left. I like to claim that I came up with that term. Okay. Because I started, started around six times. I'm glad, I'm glad it took off. I think, I don't know if it's true or not. I think we all just made all the smart people just settled in on like the right good term.

[A]

At the same time, I think we all think that we came up with it because I thought I came up with it. I think Katherine Brodsky thinks she came up with it. James Lindsay thinks he came up with it.

[B]

It was all around the same time, right.

[A]

I think we all just had the same thought. We wrote it on a napkin and then we realized that we were all thinking the same thing and had the same idea.

[B]

That's fair. I have no proof that I was the first. So I can't, I cannot actually claim it. All right. So I mean, let's actually start there with what we took so we can get into questions. But what's, I'm going to say what I think about the woke right then I want to hear what you, what you say when I, when people ask you, Will, what do you mean by that? I'm like, look, the woke right and the woke left, they wear different colored jerseys. One's red, one's blue. And they do hate each other. Don't get me wrong. It's not like they're like in cahoots secretly, but they think the same. And there's, I have a pretty solid list. I wish I had it written down in front of me, but it's a good list of. Of psychological traits that are similar between the two. One is emotional reasoning, as opposed to, you know, using your brain to reason, using logic to reason, using emotion to reason. A really important one I think a lot of people miss is single variable analysis. So single variable causality. There's a problem here. It must be due to this one simple thing. They want simple answers for complex problems.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

It's always just one. If only we had term limits, everything would be fixed in Congress. Like, it's just like there's this highly simplistic thinking style, us versus them mentality. Like that's all that matters. It's not really. It's not about the winning the principles. It's not about winning the policy. It's about winning over them, whoever them is. There's a. There's a deep paranoia of like betrayal on your own side. Really deep paranoia. And you see that. You think you see that from both a lot more from the right, but. But you see it on the left as well. I could keep going. I want you. I wrote a really good list. I could probably get it up real pretty quick as we're talking. But what, I mean, what you. How did you come up with the term? Why did you start thinking about it that way?

[A]

I think I. I agree with you in terms of all of those characteristics. I think I see it as something even more fundamental, which is something that you were alluding to, that they use the same operating system in terms of how they categorize society. Yeah, they both.

[B]

Identity politics. Oh, victimhood is the other one.

[A]

Victimhood is right.

[B]

Worship of victim.

[A]

Exactly. And that's because they're essentially organizing political and cultural life on an intersectional hierarchy in which certain people are oppressed and thus the most entitled and other people are the oppressors and keeping them down and thus need to be stripped of power. And I think this is.

[B]

That's an antithetical philosophy to conservatives completely.

[A]

Because conservativism is about individualism, individual liberties. It is not collectivists. It does not see people in terms of their racial or gender categories or anything like that.

[B]

Right. Immutable characteristics are out the window. It's about. It's about what you do. It's about you. It's about your character. You know, and we talk. They use the word right wing. That is identitarianism. I'm assuming I'm getting that from. From your writings. Right. And it's worth a lot and. Yeah, I just. It's not a word I used a lot before but, you know, I like it because it, After Charlie's. Charlie Kirk's death, the video that made its way around the Internet a lot was him bashing one of these gripers at an event.

[A]

And you, sir, are not a conservative. Get out of line.

[B]

You, sir, you're a right wing anti. Is what he said.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You are not a conservative. It was, it was, it was a very powerful moment. And I think I remember it at the time, but it didn't mean, it didn't mean as much, I think, to me at the time. Is it obviously after, after he died, it was. I loved that that was going around because that was Charlie's best.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I remember when I, when I first started doing things with TPUSA first, back when politics was fun. Politics is no longer fun, but back when it was fun and we were, we were, we were doing.

[A]

I didn't know it was ever fun.

[B]

It was fun for a year maybe. And now the work is good because, like, we don't have majorities and seniority. Like, the work is, is better than ever. But the, but the politics for the, for the reasons we're talking about, honestly, is not fun.

[A]

It's ugly.

[B]

And I remember with tpusa, this Dick Fuentes and the gripers coming to all of these events and trying to, you know, they would, you could always tell who they were. And it was funny. Like, DPUSA staff would give me some prep ahead of time. They're like, okay, so you'll recognize them because 1. And they're all young men, except the less. There was one time there was a girl, I was like, just one girl. One girl you have. Yeah. Yeah. And. But you'll recognize them because they're just, they're over the top maga. Like, they're, they're wearing MAGA hats. Like they're the real. They're trying to be really trumpy. But they'll have these really giant crosses that they wear. So I don't know, they don't, they don't do that anymore. This is like back in 2019, 2020. And so that's how you'll notice them. And they'll ask these sort of at first what seemed like innocuous and leading questions about Israel and Jews, but then it'll quickly devolve and just, you know, just be ready for it and go from there. And we did. And we fought back at them pretty hard. It was. They went after me a lot. They went after Ben Shapiro a lot. They went after Charlie Kirk a lot. And then they kind of died off until recently because of good old Tucker.

[A]

Well, I think there is a lot of factors that led up to their re emergence and I definitely think that Tucker is an important vehicle in terms of legitimizing them and mainstreaming them. But I think also even just Elon Musk's freeing of X, right. You had a lot of these people that were banned on social media for better or for worse. And when Elon Musk opened it back up, I believe Andrew Torba might even be on record. There might be a post somewhere. Don't quote me on this. But he, Andrew Torba might have even admitted that he, he actually initiated like a migration from Gab or A4chan to X.

[B]

Who. Who is it?

[A]

So Andrew Torba is the head of gab, which is a set, essentially a social media cesspit of far right rage and, and victimhood and anti Semitism. You know, just really the, the, in my opinion, the ugliest of humanity's instincts.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

All in one social media forum. And a lot of these, A lot of these identitarians on the right who would spew vile hatred and bigotry, they were pushed into these spaces like Gab or 4chan. And when X was opened up, they all kind of migrated back over to X. And now you have all of these ideas that are circulating and I'm not sure how the algorithm works. I mean I've hold. I've been told that it's transparent so you can actually see it. But even if the algorithm doesn't favor the rage bait because it can all be monetized, it's still being privileged over normie talk and definitely favors the rage ideas.

[B]

I think it always did. I think Twitter was successful before. I don't, I don't see anything successful now.

[A]

Do you feel I'm not on it very much Right.

[B]

Either. Like if, if I'm on it, it's because someone sent me a thing I have to respond to or something.

[A]

But do you find when you are on it that there is the same type of content?

[B]

It's hard to say because I've just, I've just been. Yeah, I scroll important things. I scroll Instagram. If I'm, if I'm going to mindlessly scroll, I'm going to scroll Instagram and I'm. And I'm. The things that I follow and it curates for me are very non political. It's just, it's just, you know, maybe.

[A]

It'S like cooking a steak.

[B]

It could be that. Yeah, it's a lot of Home. It's a lot. She's a lot of home improvement stuff.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And just funny stuff. Just all the funny things. That's the whole point of scrolling is just mindlessly escape. Like.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, and there's still some political things from people I respect and follow, but. So it's not so bad. Twitter. I don't know. I'd have to pull up right now and I guess I could tell you. But it really is about who you follow, right? I don't know.

[A]

But I think anecdotally I have talked to so many conservatives that are on X and have been on X for quite a while. And collectively across the board, they tell me that they cannot even Senator Cruz will say they, they cannot go on there anymore without getting just banned with hundreds of comments just for saying Shabbat Shalom or something.

[B]

You know, I've heard this too from like the, the meat, like news media folks who like, would use it to literally. Because it wasn't, it was a useful tool to just to get a snapshot in time of what's happening in the world. I think that that's ultimately what Twitter is designed for. Totally. You can't get that from any other platform.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And those are the types who would tell me, yeah, it's not usable for that anymore. I, I have to, I have to figure something else out because, because my, yeah, my feet is just, it's too infiltrated with the most random of things. And, you know, that's that. Yeah. So I, I, I don't, I don't, I don't like what's happened here. I don't feel, you know, should people be banned for dumb reasons? No, of course not. Um, but also, but also it's gotta be a usable platform.

[A]

It's a really tough question. Right? I mean, I, I know that X is trying to make moves in terms of listing country of origin, which.

[B]

That was a cool one. I like that idea. Yeah.

[A]

I think bots, obviously, is one of the biggest problems we face, and I think it's one of the most challenging problems.

[B]

It is challenging because when we say bot, it's not actually a bot.

[A]

Yeah. It could be a human bot.

[B]

It's a human who's, who's run, who's literally paid to run like 50 accounts. And so, you know, I think people think like, well, there's a. Doing this. The systems kick you out pretty quick if it has to be a person, as far as I can tell.

[A]

And it's like a game of Whack a mole too. Get One. It's.

[B]

Right, right. And they just, they just. There is. There. There is something going on because, like, you know, sometimes things just. Just blow up way too fast. They don't, you know, in a way that doesn't make sense for. Oh, like for normal human reactions.

[A]

Right, of course. Well, there was that report that just came out about how Nick Fuentes is. Nick Fuentes's followers are overwhelmingly from Pakistan and Nigeria on X. Because the ratios just don't make sense. How he could just have a post and then within 10 seconds have, you know, a thousand likes or something like that.

[B]

Yeah. And you can. There's. And he has a way to pay those kind of bot farms, if we call them. But they're real people. You know, they're just, they're just in those kind of countries and they're. There's services that do that. And so it's good that it's being exposed.

[A]

I think what you said about Charlie and his rejection of the Groiper movement points to something that I think is being lost within the conservative space, which is. And it was something that Andre and I were talking about right before we started this podcast, and that is this concept of gatekeeping and how it's a little different than cancel culture and how conservatives have conflated the two things a lot differently. The two things. And in reality, I think we should get back to it, in a sense, because we've always done it. Conservatives have principles. We're not going to let people in.

[B]

Is where Kevin Roberts really got it wrong.

[A]

Yes, completely. He messed that up.

[B]

I mean, like, surprisingly surprising how bad he doesn't understand the concept.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And you're absolutely right. There's a, There's, There's a, There's a. There's a massive difference between gatekeeping and cancel culture. Cancel culture is.

[A]

Is, you know, lose your livelihood, use. Lose your. Lose your job, censor, you know, and it's.

[B]

I would say it's. It's irrational. I think that kind of. The, the defining. The defining difference is that it's. It's an irrational cancellation over. Over something that was. Over something you did or said that. That really was within the mainstream. But people, but there are people trying to make that not mainstream. And so it's like cancel culture is more prevalent on the left because progressivism is about progressing out of the box. Conservatism is about staying inside the box. And so if you're always trying to progress outside the box, then it's. It's as natural for you to try and cancel people. Who are saying normal things that were previously inside the box.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Does that make sense?

[A]

Yes, totally.

[B]

But gatekeeping is a very different thing. I mean, you have a party, it's like, okay, so what if somebody is for, you know, 99% of what Democrats are for, but they say they were Republican? We just let them in.

[A]

Exactly. That's. That's literally what's happening now.

[B]

Yeah, and that's. And that's. Yeah. And that's kind of what we're talking about. It's like, that's not. That's not.

[A]

That's not.

[B]

Cancel culture. That's. That's not.

[A]

Well, also, you just described Tucker Carlson.

[B]

Right. I'll just ask him questions.

[A]

No, I mean, we. We have this belief that because maybe at one point, Tucker Carlson had the same general worldview as we do as conservatives, that he's still one of us. And in reality, he's free to believe whatever he wants and have anybody he wants on his podcast and say anything he'd like to. But that does not mean that we have to accept his classification as a conservative, because the only conservative issues that he agrees on are social ones that are associated with his faith. So, for example, abortion or LGBT rights, things like that. Right. Gay marriage. But when it comes to economics, when it comes to constitutional issues, when it comes to foreign policy, he's lockstep with the left. And when it comes to his greater worldview and his values, he doesn't. He's. He's like a post constitutional guy. He doesn't share conservative principles. So be whoever you want to be, but don't gaslight us into making us call you something that we. That we don't see.

[B]

I mean, like, oh, you're trying to silence me, trying to silence my freedom of speech. It's like, no, there's also this other thing called freedom of association. You know, I don't have to call you part of my team if I don't want to. I'm not silencing you. I'm just saying I don't want you on my team.

[A]

Right.

[B]

It's really simple. I mean, it's wild that this is even like. But that's how they do it. Right? And you noted how they infiltrated maga. And it's. And I've always. I've always told people that, like, why is this happening? It's because, well, the grippers, the alt right, the qanons, you know, they lost the home, and maybe that home was on gab or wherever.

[A]

But no, they got their moment.

[B]

They also kind of lost just credibility generally.

[A]

Yep, they did.

[B]

And, and then they took the opportunity to try and infiltrate maga. And it's. And it's. And I think. I know. I've noticed it for a long time. You've probably noticed it for a long time now everyone has finally noticed it. I'm really happy about that. To have some more folks in the thoughtfuls here. And I think that the, the, the flashpoint was Israel. Right. I think that's what got most conservatives to kind of wake up and be like, wait a second, you guys, don't. Hey, you're sitting. You're supporting loss. Like, what's going on here?

[A]

Yeah. Exploding Iran, Hamas.

[B]

Yeah. You're defending. You take notes on. You take. Waste no time defending our enemies every single time, whether it's Russia, Iran, China. Yeah, you know, it's just, it's getting a little strange, Right?

[A]

I know, I know. I mean, these people, they either outright side with our enemies. China's great. They're. They have, they have a great system of governance, or they just deny that these people are our enemies at all. So they might not say that. They might, you know, like, Dave Smith. Dave Smith will. I know your best friend well, he's just such a. So he'll say things like, yeah, Iran is in an authoritarian regime, and, yeah, they're oppressive, but. But they're not a threat to the US they're not our enemy. Right.

[B]

So, I mean, I think they literally talk about wiping us off the face of the earth. It's just such a wild.

[A]

And this is another way in which these people are indistinguishable from the left. They had this utopian vision of the world that America in 2025 can just seal itself off in some sort of hermetic dome, remove itself from the world. I mean, these people favor what Alexander Dugan calls a multipolar global order in which essentially the world is divided into regions of influence and America is no longer the dominant global influence. It is essentially you have the spheres of Russian dominance and Asian dominance and whatnot.

[B]

And hard to say what they think American dominance, region should be.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You know, it's not like I see him, like, openly supporting Trump's efforts in the Caribbean right now.

[A]

Right, exactly. That's true. That's the point.

[B]

They're cheering for it.

[A]

Right. No, I mean, I think it's no coincidence that when Trump is blowing up boats, you know, coming out of Venezuela, that you have Tucker Carlson at the exact same time talking about how Maduro isn't really that bad. Because he, there's no trans people in Venezuela.

[B]

I actually didn't see that. I need to clip that.

[A]

Yeah, no, he's, he's a fan of Maduro.

[B]

Apparently. He's a, it's like, again, it's, he, he doesn't even have to know who Maduro is to be a fan. Right. He just needs to know that it's America's enemy and he'll take no time at all to go and defend them. He's a contrarian. And you know, there's a question for you. As we, as we analyze this, we can analyze it for hours, which we don't have, unfortunately. That's a. Buzzing you hear means we have to go vote pretty soon. But you know, I often wonder, it's like, how do you possibly hold these views? And you know, these aren't the, these aren't stupid, stupid people that we're talking about or at least, at the very least, I don't think they're that smart, but they're clever. You know, Tucker Carlson's very talented and he's clever. You know how much of it is true belief? And Nick Fuentes even like, is he just a provocateur? Is he, you know, maybe it's a mix of both. I, I don't know. What, like, what do you think? Candace and her, Candace, her like radical shift or whatever the hell she is right now.

[A]

Right. I think that's the million dollar question is how big is this? Right. And there's no way to know completely. And even if you have a majority of these people being propped up by bots, there is still a significant real world effect of this. I mean, I've interviewed almost a hundred Christians for my book and I say Christians because I'm Jewish. So I've been specifically dipping into a non Jewish community in order to kind of discover what's going on on the ground. Almost all of them are telling me anecdotally that they are seeing this stuff in their churches, in their conservative communities, not necessarily from their pastors or their priests, but just from their fellow churchgoers and their peers, particularly the young. Particularly the young.

[B]

And that's what's scary.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I definitely think it's real for some of their followers, you know, but I have to wonder if it's real for the, for the leaders of it.

[A]

But it doesn't need to be.

[B]

It doesn't matter. And in the end it has the.

[A]

Same effect because culture, once you have a, even 5% of the culture of conservatism, if you have 5% of it that has these post constitutional ideas for America, these revolutionary plans to tear America down just like the left and rebuild it in its image. 5% is a lot. And that absolutely can shift the culture. And then you have the top down which try to go in the direction of the culture and might follow suit. It's a really tough problem to solve. But I think that in order to tackle this, I think that conservatives all need to accept a few things. I think we need to accept, number one, that this is not just a groiper problem or an antisemitism problem. That this is a wider movement and it's not necessarily a coherent movement. There's sub factions and they all, some of them are Duganites and some of them are Courtesy Arvind followers. And so. Well, Courtesy Arvin is really just a Duganite and some of them are Stephen Wolf followers, whatever. But they're all united by this reactionary desire to strip America of the, the, its democratic and its liberal roots and replace it with something else that is either technocratic, you know, authorian, authoritarian, feudalist, racialist, monarchic, whatever. So at the end of the day, we have to assert our red lines and we start, we need to start having discussions behind the scenes and in public with what are our values? What does it mean? You know, Matt Walsh needs to do another movie. What is a conservative? We need to start actually asking ourselves what do believe? What do we believe in. In this, in this technological world now where you have the Peter Thiels and the, and the Marc Andreessens that are pushing this Dark Enlightenment stuff that, that wants to, you know, essentially accelerate the, the demise of, of, of, you know, Democratic, Democratic norms in order to create a more efficient, ordered based society. Right, yeah.

[B]

And to seem like a Silicon Valley.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, I remember everyone looked at the Dark Enlightenment. Geez.

[A]

I know. And I think, I think conversation. I know, right? I mean, like you said, we could talk for hours. But I think, and I don't, I don't mean to go into the weeds with this, but I just think that, and I don't even think that we all need to understand this stuff. I just think that we need to understand what we stand for, what values we stand for. And then if we see people that do not share those worldviews, they can disagree about specific issues. There's absolutely room for that type of debate and disagreement. But if they don't share our fundamental values and our fundamental worldview, then you're not on our side. You're on a different Side, you're part of a different political movement, a different political philosophy. Not a conservative.

[B]

A basic defense of Western civilization. People, sometimes they'll ask, well, the conservatives, what are you trying to conserve? You know, the 50s, like. No, the founding, the founding principles. That's the easy answer. It's the founding. Founding principles.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

They're, they're timeless. They, they, they're limiting principles so that they by nature live in a box. It's not progressivism, which is changing for the sake of changing. And it's, it's antithetical to a lot of these woke. Right. Traits that we've, that we've talked about. And so it should be easy for conservatives to do that, I mean, because we have, we have a rich history and a rich, let's say we have plenty of thought leaders and books and philosophical infrastructure.

[A]

Buckley did it with the John Birch Society, you know, and a lot of these people hate ugly. They hate it.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, it really is. It is. It is definitely that back to that civil war. And some of us have been noticing it for a few years and I think more have started to notice it now.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And you know, social media has just changed that, that dynamic so massively. We're seeing this big fight right now with Turning Point and, and Candace Owens and you know, that's, it's. The only way I can explain that really is, look it, people like her and Tucker, as they've moved more, they've been pushed out of the mainstream for their actions and deservedly so. Well, they also know from a business perspective that they can corner a certain market. And that 5% you talked about. Yeah, it's not nothing we can, you know. Well, you could say like, whoa, that's. Yeah, it's only 5%.

[A]

You only need 10% of the population for revolution.

[B]

And, and you know, that's a very loud 5%. Like this is the passionate one. Bullying most is most, most people, you know, are just not that really into anything, you know, except just taking care of their family, their, their friends. Like, they're not paying attention to most of this stuff, but they hear things occasionally. And if the vast majority of the things they're hearing. Right. Are these sort of psychopathic 5% ideas. Well, there's a, there's another 40 or so. And I'm, I kind of make up that number based on my observations. Being in politics and, you know, constantly doing polling and things like that. That's where. That's when you run into dangerous territory because there's people that are just susceptible to, to Bad ideas, you know, if they didn't come up with them. And, you know, we've got to be better, better critical thinkers and understand the motivations of a lot of these media folks. Like their, Their motivation is very simple. It's monetary. They don't have any other motivation. And it's funny. And then so they, so they project that, right? Because they project it on people like me and all other politicians about corruption and money and all this crap. It's like we are the most scrutinized people on earth. I was just laughing at Sean Ryan's threats to me last night on his, on his show where he says, well, Dave Catcher's not going to sue me because he's afraid of discovery. And then we're going to. This now we're going to get really into his finances. I'm like, oh, my God. You actually don't know that. We already publicly disclose every freaking. Every single thing about our finances in Congress. You actually don't know that. He's like, we'll find out what stocks you traded. It's like, you should already know, bro. It's literally publicly disclosed.

[A]

But this is such a.

[B]

It's just, it's just so wild.

[A]

It's. It's such a shame because in this ecosystem that we live in of this, this, this hyper, you know, just this, this overwhelming amount of information that we are consuming every single day through the Internet, there's no accountability anymore. People don't feel any sort of personal responsibility to. For their words because they don't have to be.

[B]

Community Notes is getting a little better. Community. Let's be positive for a second.

[A]

Community Notes.

[B]

I'm liking what I'm seeing from Community Notes and Grok.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

If we're gonna, you know, talking Twitter, Flash X like, oh, so far, I mean, I haven't. That at least is something.

[A]

Sure. But I'm making a larger point, which is that we are not designed humans. We have not developed to process so much information.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

We only have a certain amount of memory storage. And so if somebody says something one day, if they make some wild accusation against somebody that actually affects their life the next day, it doesn't matter because everybody's on to the next thing because there's so much information in the ecosystem. So people can kind of get away from. With saying whatever they want. And I'm not trying. This is not any sort of call to suppress their speech, but whatever happened to our own sense of personal responsibility and our own sense of having to be civically responsible and influencing our peers and our societies in a positive way. Right. I feel like that's being lost, too.

[B]

That's for sure true. And that's a critique of that 5%. And the Tuckers of the world, who know what they're doing is wrong, They've got to. But they don't care. Right. Because again, there's a monetary value.

[A]

You think Tucker knows that what he's doing is destructive and nihilistic?

[B]

Yeah, it's gotta be. There's gotta be something deep down inside of him that's still the same Tucker. There's gotta be. He just. It's just he lacks any sense of moral compass, so he just doesn't care.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

I do think he's been gone a little bit crazy also. Two things can be true at once. But I think what just. I think I agree with what you're saying, and I. And I would add to it that my, you know, there's a civic duty to. To educate yourself when you're hearing something also. And the greatest threat to America, you know, maybe this is something. I agree with Tug Rock. It's not actually. The greatest threat is not actually this axis of evil of Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia. They're very, very beatable in every single way. The greatest threat is our own country not being able to think critically, which will push us down a path where we cannot actually beat that axis of evil, to borrow an old term that everyone hates, but I don't know what else to call it, because that's what it is. And critical thinking is antithetical to what we talked about on the Woke Left and Woke Right. It's like they, they actually, they're. The first thing they do is. Is do away with critical thinking.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Because they're reactionary, reactionary, emotional, and, you know, it's effectively populism, Whether it's the populist right, the world right. It's. It's that horseshoe.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, it's. It's the same person. And, you know, I know that some of the big leaders on this were. Were former Marxists, like Candace Owens.

[A]

Like. Yeah.

[B]

You know, Candace is a former, you know, former far leftist and then likes something about Trump and, And became a far right winger. But I would point out to people, do not be surprised that she's at where she's at right now, because she was. Her brain didn't change. She didn't become wired differently. She just put on a different jersey.

[A]

Sure. Well, it's the grift. The grift is real. Yeah, It's. It's There's a lot of temptation to become a grifter, I think when you're in the podcast to Stan space.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, it'll get engagement. Right. And it's, it's not my, it's not my videos on importance, you know, energy or environment permitting issues, health care issues that'll actually affect your life. It's not going to get me engagements. I know it's not, but I, I have to do it because that's my job.

[A]

No, it's not nuance.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It's rage. And that's really the problem here is you have all these podcasters that are capitalizing and weaponizing real issues that Americans are facing, including the youth, especially the.

[B]

Youth, distracting from issues that actually matter too well.

[A]

What? Well, they. Right. Well, I think they're distracting from the good solutions, but they're taking the understandable rage or bitterness at, you know, that certain people have towards our institutions or our public school system or like the woke left's, you know, characterization of white males as toxic and fascist and stuff like that. And the woke right, sees that you have this disgruntled population, right, that doesn't even have a lot of chances at this moment for upward mobility. And instead of doing what Charlie did and advocating, advocating positive and hopeful messages to help these people not get sucked into a, into despair and, and nihilism and scapegoating and bigotry, Charlie, you know, Charlie advocated, advocated for, you know, getting married and just focusing on your community and your faith. Right? I mean, the, the, the basics of what I, the what I call the three Fs of conservatism, which is faith, family and freedom. And that is not what the Tuckers and the Candices of the world are pushing at all. They are saying you are angry, understandably. Understandably. So you need to, you are a victim. And so you need to go out there and you need to burn it all down and, and you need to find out who's. Like you said, it's the single. What did you. The word single analysis.

[B]

Right?

[A]

You need to find the secret people that are pulling all the strings and responsible for your situation.

[B]

They want to make it simple for their followers. Right, Exactly. There's only one thing you need to find, right? It's this. That's the establishment, right? And I'm like.

[A]

The Jews are the Indians.

[B]

Like, where is this establishment that supports me so much?

[A]

Well, well, that's. I know, right? And there is no.

[B]

I would like some support.

[A]

Right. So. And like, who exactly? Like, where is the conservative establishment, I feel like that doesn't exist anymore. Like there was a conservative establishment at.

[B]

One point gets into that gatekeeping. There is one in the Democrat party. There is gatekeeping.

[A]

There absolutely is.

[B]

Absolutely. And I just find it funny. I'm like, I tell people I gotta end with this and go, I'm sorry. But I'll tell you one. Like a thought experiment. I like to tell the folks when they're talking about the establishment. I'm like, I'll just prove the existence of the so called establishment with this simple thought experiment. Two people are in a Republican primary. One of them is anti establishment. One of them says, I could work with. I know within. There's nothing wrong with the establishment. That's, you know, those are two different taglines. Right. Which one wins? Of everything else being equal, which one wins? The anti establishment guy, thereby negating the existence of any establishment.

[A]

Wait, wait, okay, wait, wait, wait. Say this again. Say this again.

[B]

I want to understand again. So there's a, there's a primary.

[A]

Yes, yes.

[B]

Imagine a primary. Two, two basically identical candidates. But one candidate's anti establishment and says. Says as much as always railing against the establishment and the other.

[A]

And he wins.

[B]

Yeah, of course they win. That's my point. The other one doesn't, but the anti establishment does. So if there's an establishment that's all powerful, then how the hell is that guy winning?

[A]

Oh, I see. Okay, I see the point.

[B]

The like it's that thought experiment which everyone agrees with. Everyone always answers, well of course the anti SEM guy wins.

[A]

I see.

[B]

Yeah. Okay, so you just negated the existence of this so called establishment, didn't you?

[A]

Look, I think there, I mean, look, there's no doubt, there's a deep state, there's a bureaucracy. There are people that are not principled. It doesn't matter if they're left or right. But they are trying to, they are trying to keep their power so they, they can call the shots.

[B]

Yeah, the details of the.

[A]

That exists.

[B]

It's not quite.

[A]

That exists.

[B]

It's not the organized conspiracy that people think it is.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

It's a bunch of people who live in bureaucracy with bias.

[A]

Exactly, exactly. Which is wholly different from I think what you're describing. Which is exactly a group of, of people who essentially want to keep everybody else down deliberately so that they can maintain power and assert their agenda at the expense, the deliberate expense of everybody else. That is a type of, you know, conspiratorial thinking that always leads to anti Semitism and the destruction of society and and, and, and, and, and we can talk about individual institutions, we can talk about the corruption of the World Economic Forum and the United nations and all these multilateral organizations, but to say that they're, they're all, they're, they're, they all kind of converge at this one point, and then there's just a small cabal that are manipulating all of them and even control our state, our state governance and even our local municipalities. And it's all designed for one specific agenda. I mean, how simple would life be to be able to look through the world through that lens? Right.

[B]

Yeah. And all you have to do is take out the one top figure and then everything solves. Wouldn't that be nice?

[A]

Wouldn't that be nice?

[B]

That's that utopianism that you talked throughout.

[A]

And that's exactly what Tucker and Kennedy, Candace, are pushing. That is, that is the framework, how.

[B]

They see somebody more elite and at the top than, than people like that.

[A]

You know, people like Tucker.

[B]

Yeah. Talk about inside the, inside the Beltway elite. It's like he epitomizes that, but he.

[A]

But he wears plaid now and he lives in Maine and he goes fishing. What are you talking about? He's just a good, like, working class.

[B]

Guns. Learned how to shoot gun. Yeah. So the grift is real. All right. I'm sorry. We could talk a lot longer, and I wish. We, wish we could, but you got to get this vote in cars. Thank you so much for being on. It's been a pleasure to speak with you. We'll do it again.

[A]

Absolutely. The pleasure is mine. Thank you.