The Alt-Right's Claim to the Right Is As Legitimate As Dwight Schrute's Claim to Assistant Regional Manager

August 15, 2017

WRITER

In the wake of the weekend’s violent events in Charlottesville, conservatives have been distancing themselves more than ever from the extreme rhetoric of the alt-right.

The movement, which has been slowly trying to take over the political right, focuses on nationalism and has drawn Nazi support and praise from white supremacist figures like Richard Spencer and former KKK leader David Duke.

On radio Tuesday, Glenn and the guys analyzed the term “alt-right” and talked about the rise of the movement.

Stu Burguiere used a humorous example to show the world of difference between the alt-right and the conservative movement. In NBC’s comedy “The Office,” the self-important character Dwight Schrute likes to call himself “assistant regional manager” – even though he is simply the “assistant to the regional manager.” Similarly, the alt-right pretends to be the right, even though they are a smaller, usurping movement.

The analogy doesn’t work so well later in the series when Dwight does become assistant regional manager for a time, Glenn Beck pointed out.

“Temporarily having Dwight Schrute in charge of the Constitution and the movement to protect it might not be the best of ideas,” Glenn said.

GLENN: So can someone tell me alt-right, "alt" is the shorthand for what word?

STU: Alternative.

PAT: Altimeter?

GLENN: No.

PAT: Alternator?

GLENN: No.

STU: Alternator.

GLENN: Seriously, it is?

STU: Alternate.

GLENN: Alternate. Somebody define "alternate" for me.

PAT: Something used instead of something else.

GLENN: Something used instead of something else.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So if it's the alternate right, what it's saying is, we are something to be used instead of the conservative constitutional movement.

STU: Uh-huh. The literal definition of alternate is taking the place of.

GLENN: Hmm.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: So the alt-right, which the right opened its doors and said, "Come on in," announced, "We are the group that will take the place of you."

STU: Uh-huh. And I made this point kind of yesterday, when we were talking about the office where, you know, Dwight Schrute was assistant -- he wasn't assistant regional manager as he always tried to say. He was assistant to the regional manager.

And, look, there's various things around the right. There's a Libertarian right. There's a social conservative right. There's different movements among the right. But the alt-right is not an alternative right. It is an alternative to the right. You know, it is a -- it's a completely different movement completely.

PAT: Much as the left is.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: An alternate to the right.

GLENN: It is a -- it's an alt-left.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: When you -- for Democrats, when they took in the left, it was the new left. You can read all about the new left.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: When you read about what the new left really is, it was to supplant, subvert the Constitution and by using the vehicle of the Democratic Party or destroying it. So they'll either get into the car and then grab the steering wheel and take that car and drive it into a car of people, or they'll destroy that vehicle and then replace it.

So it's the same thing. And it's already happened with the Democrats. They're already gone, guys.

And it's what Joe Lieberman said. Remember, Joe Lieberman was really one of the last of the good guys on the -- on the Democratic Party, that had a spine. Up until he stood with Al Gore.

But he had a spine. He was a good, decent, honorable man, who I disagreed with. But Joe Lieberman is not the kind of guy you're going to get into a brawl with. He's not the kind of guy who is going to say, "Yeah, and, you know what," -- like Elizabeth Warren did -- "we're not left enough. We're not tough enough. We're not loud enough." That's not Joe Lieberman.

And what did Joe Lieberman do? He left.

Here is a vice presidential candidate who said, "I cannot be a part of this party anymore. Because there's no home for me here." He didn't run to the Republicans because he doesn't believe in that. He said there's no home for me here at all. When a good, decent man like Joe Lieberman had to leave, we all should have known, that is the end.

Who is the alternate that has now supplanted everything you knew? Who -- who is in charge now?

It's the uber left. And they welcome them in. And you're seeing them get more and more and more extreme.

STU: To the point where Democrats had a controversy earlier this year in whether they were going to give any money to anyone who was pro-life. Even if you're a Democrat on every other issue, if you weren't pro-life, you weren't going to get any money or support from the party. And that's how far they've gone.

I mean, their biggest successes, you know, in governorships and things like that over the years, a lot of them have been pro-life. Pro-life Democrat is a tough thing to be. Because if you have kind of that social thing with the pro, you know -- the pro-life side, you can get enough Republicans in the boat, and it's hard -- it's hard to beat those guys.

You know, that happened in Pennsylvania. It's happened all over the country, really. That has slowly been phased out, to the Democrat's disadvantage. I mean, the fact that they've been so harsh on that particular issue has turned so many potential voters off over the years. I mean, thankfully, honestly, in many ways. Because Republicans might not win any elections.

GLENN: And so what is the alternate to the right? The alternate is to go fully to a European system. That the left is communist and the right is nationalist, populist Nazis. Socialists on both sides.

The right and the left of Europe, they're both socialists. They both believe in giant government. It's just, are we going to be communists, or are we going to be national socialists?

Those are your ends. And that's what's happening. You are seeing the sealing of the fate of the United States Constitution, and Democrats and Republicans alike should be able to come together and say, "I don't want to stand with the Antifa people because I know who they are. They are communists and anarchists. That's who they are." They are not defenders of free speech. They're not defenders of the republic. They're not defenders of freedom. They are communists and anarchists. I don't want to stand with them.

You look to the alt-right. They are national -- nationalist, populist, socialists. And they have no problem marching with a Nazi flag.

How are we so divided? How are we so divided? We had a 50-year war against communism. And we had the biggest war the world has ever seen against Nazis. Wait. What?

How is America confused? There are enemies on the left and enemies on the right. They are very small fractions of this country. They are not the center of this country. And when I say center, I don't mean the mushy middle. I mean the people who still have strong principles and values that we disagree with and will argue until the day we die, most likely.

But the middle of this country says, "I'm not a communist, and I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a black nationalist, and I'm not a white nationalist. I'm sick of all of this." That's who we are. That's the center of this country.

No, you can't be in the center.

I proudly stand in the center of that group. Because the center is the furthest place from the communists on the left and the Nazis on the right. I'm proudly as far away as I can be from either side.

And yet, the media on both sides, because they win -- we lose. But they win, they are trying to make you feel like the other side is nothing but communists, or the other side is nothing but Nazis. It's not true. And you know what, guys, if it is, then we need a civil war. But it's not true.

Don't you see what we have? There are people that are stealing it, and they are using us to help them open all of the doors and the windows so they can get the stuff and then get our house. And we're living out on the street. We're helping the robbers burgle our own home.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep