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.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep