Unfortunately Not A Sound Bath: Club Recaps

CLUB RECAP: Ignoring war, overzealous confidence, and focusing on what really matters: aliens & demons

The Pendulum — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:07:28 GMT

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

UNASB recently listened to episode 1945 of the Michael Knowles Show, “BREAKING: Trump Fires AG Pam Bondi.” We explored the messaging tactics Knowles uses to bring his audience along, including invoking religion as a source of moral authority, repetition and compassionate coercion (gently bullying his audience into agreement), perceptions of Americans and “Americanness,” and attacks on the Supreme Court.

The Episode: BREAKING: Trump FIRES AG Pam Bondi

The Michael Knowles show is part of The Daily Wire, a far-right media house founded by Ben Shapiro and home to other popular conservative podcasters including Ben Shapiro himself (“The Ben Shapiro Show”) and Matt Walsh (“The Matt Walsh Show”). While The Daily Wire’s podcasters each have their own distinct voice, there is an undeniable undercurrent pulling all of the aforementioned shows in the same direction: institutional voice.

It’s not uncommon for one podcast host to feature another Daily Wire podcaster as a guest. It’s also not uncommon for themes and specific talking points to reappear, over and over again. This is true despite the fact that Matt Walsh, for example, disagrees with the war in Iran, while Michael Knowles and Ben Shapiro both support it. They have intentional, scripted conversations, featuring polite debate over this disagreement while presenting a united front against what they view as the “real threats” to America: Ketanji Brown Jackson (the only Black woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court), trans people, the lower federal courts, unmarried women, Democrats, the educated “elite,” and anyone who isn’t Christian.

This episode bounced from topic to topic at warp speed, so buckle up.

Helping Create Distance between Trump and the administration’s “weak links”

Knowles kicked off the episode by tap dancing around the recent Trump firings of Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem. He framed the firings as unnewsworthy, calling them “unsurprising” and referring to Bondi as the “weakest link.” In a maneuver Knowles proves expert at, he simultaneously applauded Trump for his discipline and restraint while condemning the administration’s most senior officials. While Knowles didn’t directly address gender in reference to Bondi and Noem’s firings, he did comment - in his own comments section for this episode - that “[a]ll of the other women in the cabinet are starting to get nervous.” The math is in fact mathing.

In other noteworthy news Knowles glossed over, the war in Iran was not mentioned once in this episode.

The Liberals aren’t sending their best: Creating a facade of neutrality

Michael Knowles and his Daily Wire compatriots spend a lot of time talking about Ketanji Brown Jackson. In this episode, Knowles went all the way in on Justice Jackson.

What starts as a bumbling explanation of English Common Law and its foundational connections to present-day birthright citizenship in U.S. jurisprudence quickly turned into, well, whatever this is:

“Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman who during her confirmation hearings could not tell Senator Blackburn what a woman is . . . .”
“Ketanji Jackson, arguably not the most qualified jurist we’ve had on the Supreme Court . . . some would say, not the brightest bulb in the candelabra . . .”

Knowles continues this while “analyzing” the Colorado “Conversion Therapy” case, also currently before the court:

“[T]his woman’s arguments are ridiculous.”
“Elena Kagan, a very leftwing member of the Supreme Court, was mocking Justice Jackson’s arguments in this case.”
“This woman just has no grasp on the law.”
“Ketanji Jackson has no grasp on the law.”
“She has no grasp on formal logic or informal logic.”
“She clearly doesn’t understand the matters that she’s supposed to deliberate on.”
“Indeed, she doesn’t understand what a woman is.”
“[I]f you had a court full of Ketanji Jacksons, American jurisprudence would be shredded.”
“[T]he scary thing is, especially if we have a Democrat president in 2029, you’re going to get more Ketanji Jacksons.”
“There is no comparison between a Ketanji Jackson and an Elena Kagan, or even between a Ketanji Jackson and a Sonia Sotomayor….”
“The Supreme Court is supposed to be rock solid. And when you[] fill the Court up with Ketanji Jacksons, that’s going away.”

Your eyes are not betraying you. Knowles said all of these things about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a single episode.

Knowles goes as far as saying that the Solicitor General, the man responsible for arguing the birthright citizenship case on behalf of the Trump administration, “ha[d] to go in and describe what everybody always knew . . . and explain what domicile meant and what all of these legal terms meant in the 19th century.” He’s nudging his listeners to believe that Justice Jackson, a Yale-trained attorney who graduated at the top of her class and spent more time as a federal judge prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court than any other current Supreme Court Justice, does not understand the law.

Following this scathing tirade about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, it is somewhat surprising when Knowles concedes “I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to Ketanji Jackson here,” referencing the Supreme Court concept of “viewpoint neutrality,” which Knowles describes as “silly.” This is a key strategy for Knowles, as demonstrating his ability to relate to his enemy serves to strengthen his credibility. This sympathy, however, is feigned. Only a few moments later, Knowles declares “this woman’s arguments are ridiculous.”

Knowles had very little to say about the merits of either of the cases actually before the court. He spent most of his time vacillating between directly stating that Ketanji Brown Jackson is unintelligent and unqualified or insinuating as much.

This segment of the episode also proved a masterclass in fear mongering. While painting conversion therapy as not only normal, but desirable, Knowles relied heavily on populism. This divide and conquer tactic is a common mechanism for Knowles and other conservative podcasters. They create an “us” and a “them” and diligently invest in that division both within and across episodes. They tell us who is a “good American” and who is not. Spoiler alert: the LGBTQIA+ community, undocumented immigrants, Democrats, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson are on the naughty list.

UFOs, Aliens, and . . . Demons? Oh my.

“Extraterrestrial human breeding programs” . . . he said what he said. A major theme in this episode of the Michael Knowles show was aliens. At first listen, he seemed to be knowingly throwing a conspiracy theory into the ether just for funsies. However, as we unpacked in our most recent meeting, the religious undertones surfaced quickly.

After playing sound bites from recent conversations in congress surrounding aliens, the military, and how the military is allegedly perpetrating an alien sexual assault ring, Knowles shifted seemlessly into a discussion on demons.

He claims that these aliens are actually demons, in the religious sense. They don’t necessarily occupy space and time as we might expect them to. They are a demonic creation. And, in a rhetorical device he reaches for with regularity, he gently bullies his audience into agreeing with him, saying his listeners “should” believe in demons, angels, and immaterial substances. It’s common for right-wing podcasters to exploit a divide, a fear, and a pull toward the unknown. Keep an ear out for this tactic as you listen to these voices.

“I pick the least popular view on anything, that’s how you know I’m right.”

Knowles has a veritable grab bag full of tactics that he engages with impressive ease to cajole his audience into trusting him and everything he is saying. He deploys repetition deftly, saying the same phrases and repeating the same rhetorical questions over and over again. He says things like “can we all agree on this” and “Can we acknowledge that this is a problem? Can we acknowledge that this is a serious problem?”

After a brief commercial break to push beef tallow as the best facial moisturizer, he returns and repeats the exact same phrase: “Can we acknowledge that this is a problem?” leaving the listener to feel like the only reasonable thing to do is agree that this is in fact a problem. Knowles is carefully constructing an image of himself as the voice of reason, in turn anyone who disagrees is inherently crazy and unreasonable.

Knowles sprints from topic to topic in a way that leaves the listener gasping for air and with little time to think critically.

He crumbs the listener to the “truth” he wants them to believe by sandwiching factual, provable information between thick slices of ahistorical and untrue information. He taps into fear and uncertainty, repeatedly honing in on how scary the Supreme Court has become, and how much scarier it will be when it is full of Ketanji Brown Jacksons at some future time that he cannot name but assures us will come.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Better Not to Address the Elephant in the Room if it Complicates Your Argument.

Michael Knowles covers everything from anchor babies to alien demons and yet he fails to mention the heavily controversial War in Iran. By refusing to dig into this issue, Knowles is freeing himself from any need to question Trump’s actions or take a clear stance on an area that conservatives have very conflicted opinions on.

Admitting when you agree with the other side builds credibility.

Even when it comes to people we feel are completely morally opposed to us it is worth taking the time to find that ONE point of intersection. Not only does this serve as a bridge to the other side, it demonstrates that you are actually listening to their argument as opposed to rejecting everything they say at face value.

Presenting your argument as the voice of reason.

The phrases “can’t we agree” and “it’s kind of silly” are repeated over and over again by Knowles. This is powerful because it devalues the left in a tongue-in-cheek light hearted way. Scathing criticism is replaced with a sly smirk and witty line, undermining the other side without coming across as too serious or overly critical. Without any opportunity for response these rhetorical questions present all of Knowles’ arguments as unquestionable and even common sense.

Repetition.

Knowles’ presentation of his arguments as “objectively” reasonable is made all the more convincing by his use of repetition as a tool. He repeats the same phrase over and over again, sometimes both before and after a commercial break, other times just several times in a row. It eventually has the effect of either making the listener question whether he might be on to something, if not believing it outright.

Using media from the other side as evidence for your claims.

By pulling from a CBS clip and providing his own context for it, Knowles is highlighting that his perspective can be trusted. While his arguments might be better supported by right-wing media sources, he is appealing to a wider audience by demonstrating he can prove his point from either side.

Using more palatable people from the other side as foils.

Knowles repeatedly uses liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as tools to make Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seem patently unreasonable. He employs the same tactic when he disagrees with conservative Justices in other episodes, portraying Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as tried and true conservative heroes while depicting Chief Justice John Roberts as useless.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

Thanks for reading Unfortunately Not A Sound Bath! Please share with your friends. We love you!!!

CLUB RECAP: Watch Our Latest Assignment

Nina Harris — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:20:45 GMT

In our last meeting, we had an off-the record conversation about how right-wing influencers are shaping narratives. We used the following info to prep in case our readers want to follow along!

Subscribe now

Minnesota Daycare Fraud Content

In December, pro-Trump creator Nick Shirley posted a video claiming to expose widespread financial fraud at Somali-run daycare centers in Minnesota, which went viral and was boosted by right-wing media and members of the Trump administration.

Shirley visited various day care centers in Minnesota, filming people he found there and asking, “Where are the children?” After he wasn’t allowed to enter the day care facilities, he declared there were “no children anywhere.”
Despite Minnesota investigators debunking Shirley’s claims about the facilities he covered, right-wing media and the Trump administration ran with the claims and used them as an excuse to slash Minnesota’s child care funding and escalate immigration enforcement in the state, ultimately leading to 4,000 arrests, months of protests, and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Videos Alleging Voter Fraud

Trump aligned “independent reporters” are shifting to creating on the ground video content purporting to expose voter or voter registration fraud. This narrative shift coincides with the Trump administration’s widespread push to interfere with the midterm elections – often using immigration or conspiracies related to voter fraud or noncitizens voting as a pretext to do so.

TPUSA’s Frontlines and Savanah Hernandez co-posted a video to Instagram showing a petitioner on LA’s Skid Row “exchanging cigarettes for signatures.”

Cam Higby released a video featuring Jonathan Choe purporting to uncover fraudulent voter registrations along LA’s Skid Row. The title graphic for the video states it’s part 1.
- Higby also posted a clip of the video to Instagram, where he alleges to have witnessed people exchanging “cash for registration signatures on ballot initiatives.”
Nick Shirley rebooted James O’Keefe’s debunked voter fraud myths for a new audience in a YouTube video on “California’s Suspected Voter Fraud.”
Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson released a “documentary” claiming that California’s assistance programs for unhoused individuals were being used to “rig national elections.”
Right-wing commentators David Khait and Fabian Garcia teamed up to release a series of videos investigating voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, visiting a homeless shelter, a church, and more. For the church, the influencers claimed that over 2,000 people used the location as their voter registration address. However, the video omits reporting that Georgia’s voter laws allow unhoused residents to use nonresidential addresses to help them register to vote.
- Khait and Garcia published a similar video about locations in Fulton County, Georgia, on YouTube on February 17. The video has been amplified by several right-wing figures, including Trish Regan and Libs of TikTok

ICE Ride-along Videos

After a select group of right-wing and right-leaning creators were granted exclusive access to ICE raids and ride-alongs, the influencers posted misleading videos which Trump administration officials re-posted and used as evidence to support their anti-immigrant agenda.

Right-wing influencer and Real America’s Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam participated in at least 4 ICE ride-alongs in Chicago and posted a video to Facebook from one of his October ride-alongs which shows him referring to a group of bystanders as a “beehive of activist traitors,” with on-screen text that said, “Riding with ICE in Chicago exposing the enemies within!”
During a visit to Chicago in October, Benny Johnson went on a ride-along and to an ICE facility with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and he posted content of the visit that earned over 2 million views in total.

Shirley went on a ride-along in Chicago in October and posted at least two videos that earned over 2 million combined views. The videos show Shirley interviewing masked agents, riding in an ICE vehicle, and observing people being arrested.

CECOT Content

Since 2024, at least five YouTube content creators have been granted access to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, the megaprison to which the Trump administration began sending immigrants last year. The resulting YouTube videos have been viewed over 200 million times, and at least one creator appeared on Fox News several times to discuss what he saw while filming. Below are a few examples of their videos.

Nick Shirley posted a tour of CECOT and appeared on Fox News at least 4 times to discuss his visit

UAE-based YouTuber Joe Hattab posted a tour of CECOT, earning over 49 million views

Turkish YouTuber Ruhi Cenat also posted a video tour, earning over 95 million views

Subscribe now

Club Recap: MAGA Begins to Split Over Iran

Ryan — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 17:06:19 GMT

It’s been over a month since Trump attacked Iran. The subsequent failures to conclude the war quickly lay bare some of MAGA’s fissures. These fissures, which had laid dormant and knitted together by Trump, have begun to burst out into the open and threaten to peel off a non-insignificant portion of Trump’s MAGA support.

This couldn’t have been more evident in podcasts (watch them here and here) from two of MAGA’s greatest warriors: Dan Bongino, podcaster turned FBI Deputy Director turned podcaster again, and Matt Walsh, of the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA. Both are deeply loyal to MAGA but their backgrounds explain their differing takes on the war. Bongino is a mostly traditional Republican, having run for office multiple times and served as a federal law enforcement officer. Walsh came up in radio, transitioned to the Daily Wire, and is a self described “theocratic fascist”. Bongino is the guy you get a beer with at the bar. Walsh is probably the dude who radicalizes you on 4Chan.

Subscribe now

Bongino’s Version

Both spent much of their podcasts- each posted in the first week of March- talking about the war in Iran in very different ways. Bongino cheerleads the absolute smackdown we are (were?) putting on Iran. He talks about it in the way that Seahawks fans were probably talking shit after they beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, or American hockey fans to Canada after the Olympics. Ironically, Bongino lampoons the Iranian foreign minister as Baghdad Bobby, an Iraqi propagandist who said things were going absolutely great during the 2003 Iraq War (until Iraq fell to the U.S.). Looking back almost a month after this podcast first aired, it’s fair to ask if Bongino is actually Baghdad Bobby.

Playing against type, though, Bongino provides rather thoughtful commentary on topics that liberals and progressives might agree with him on: the dangers of mass surveillance and the merit of body cameras. He then diverges into some political analysis and advocacy, gently warning about the midterms, and urging his listeners to “10, 10, 10” (call ten friends about the midterms, email friends ten times, and make ten social media posts). It’s a call to action that is so clear and easy that liberals and progressives should take, and take repeatedly.

Matt’s Version

Contra to Bongino, Walsh is extremely skeptical of the war, befitting the America First, isolationist wing that he is associated with. He starts by arguing that for any use of American military force, the benefits should outweigh the costs. He notes that the Trump administration has not made the case for war nor these benefits, effectively going radio silent, while contrasting their approach with the Bush administration- where, despite the disastrous Iraq War- they at least made the case. He also compares the Trump administration’s approach of “trust us, we’re the experts” to the similar approach (in his view) of the public health experts during COVID.

Liberals and progressives would agree with many of Walsh’s critiques. But he then uses the specter of terror attacks by immigrants in America unhappy about the U.S.’ attack against Iran (and the terror attack by a naturalized American citizen from Senegal in Texas in the days after the U.S. first struck Iran) to argue that the Iran War is making America less safe. He demagogues against immigration from the “third world”, arguing for denaturalizing “anti-American invaders”, while stating that before he could support the Iran War, America would need to deport every “third world Muslim militant and potential militant”. Ultimately, he concludes the totality of these risks make the war not worth taking. His conclusion on immigration is sobering and infuriating: if liberals and progressives could find common ground with someone like Walsh on Iran, they will quickly find that with his anti-immigrant rhetoric, it’s poisoned ground.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Bongino and Walsh both offer places to find common ground with different wings of MAGA.

Speaking from authority as both a former law enforcement officer and Deputy FBI Director, Bongino makes the case against mass surveillance using AI tools and in favor of body cameras to protect law enforcement officers from false accusations. With Walsh, liberals and progressives are uniformly against the war in Iran, just as Walsh and the isolationist wing of MAGA are. This opposition has been proven correct through the subsequent failure to defeat Iran quickly and the closure of the Hormuz Strait that is increasing prices. Hijack these talking points to help pivot conversations.

Despite the common ground, Bongino and Walsh both use extremely loaded language when talking about Democrats and immigrants.

Bongino spends much of his time praising Kristi Noem and blasting Democrats as the “anti anti communists” (willing to lie in bed with anyone, as long as they’re anti-Trump) and Walsh uses extremely demeaning language when talking about immigrants. These guys will never view liberals or progressives as partners on anything.

How are we supposed to square the potential to find agreement with the fundamental incompatibility with Bongino’s and Walsh’s views?

The first step is to separate the listener from the messenger. Just because someone listens to Bongino and Walsh doesn’t mean they will agree with everything they say or believe. The next step is to understand what is core to their appeal. Walsh and Bongino appeal to a sense of safety and order. In the case of Iran, it’s possible to argue that the Iran War has made us less safe, less secure, and also put our troops in harm’s way for no reason.

Like many other successful MAGA commentators, Bongino and Walsh often come off as “we’re just asking questions” guys. Liberals and progressives can use that against them.

First, as someone noted in a listening group, encourage curiosity as an act of resistance, and then use the disconnect in what Bongino and Walsh are stating is fact against the reality that is plainly before us. In the case of the Iran War, it is clear- despite what Bongino Bob says- that the war is not going well or achieving its objectives. Liberals and progressives can use that dissonance to undercut Bongino’s authority before his audience and drive distrust between MAGA leaders and their followers.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

Thanks for reading! We’re currently accepting new members into our 5th (!!) cohort starting in April. Sign up here!

Subscribe now

The Purity Culture Pipeline Bringing Women into the Right Wing Media Ecosystem

Jenica — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 20:23:46 GMT

The Right Wing’s use of cultural commentary as a tactic to funnel new audiences into the MAGA-aligned media ecosystem is something UNASB has come to understand well. We’ve examined how this works to target young men; last week, we turned our attention to how it operates on women, leading with moral concerns and values-first messaging before pivoting to ideology.

The episode: Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey’s Episode 1304 | ‘Wuthering Heights’ Movie is NOT What I Expected.

The messenger: Allie Beth Stuckey is a podcaster on Glenn Beck’s network and author of the recent New York Times bestseller ‘Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion,’ which frames progressive appeals to compassion as dangerous manipulation tactics. A Conservative Millennial, wife, and mom of three, Stuckey operates at the intersection of politics and Christian theology. She has 722k YouTube subscribers and 900k Instagram followers.

In the episode, Stuckey critiques the recently-released film ‘Wuthering Heights’ and contemporary pop culture through the lens of Christian womanhood and purity culture, taking aim at Bridgerton, Taylor Swift, Twilight, among others. Notably, Stuckey’s discourse around ‘Wuthering Heights’ seems to imply that she has not actually watched it.

Note: Stuckey’s advertisers—pro-life diapers marketed as “knowing what a woman is,” crisis pregnancy centers, prepper supplies that shift responsibility for family protection from state to individual—explicitly reinforce the worldview she proselytizes.

Subscribe now

Key Learnings & How to Use Them

Values-first messaging is a gateway

Stuckey leads with appeals to shared moral concerns: gender-based violence in media, the impact of hyper-sexualization on young women, and the toxicity of patriarchal control in romantic relationships. This approach lets listeners first agree with her moral premise without realizing they’re being moved toward a particular political worldview.

She never mentions being “Republican” or “conservative,” never invokes the boogeyman language of “the left” or “Hollywood elite.” By avoiding partisan language, she sidesteps barriers many people put up against political messaging. A mother concerned about media’s impact on her child, or a young woman worried about a romantic relationship, finds herself in genuine agreement, then gradually absorbed into an ideology that systematically undercuts women’s agency and autonomy.

Making it actionable

This is how moral foundations function: start with a shared truth or moral concern (sexualization of children, social media harms kids, media depicts violence) that activates a core moral intuition, then bring politics in through that foundation. The Right does this well, whereas the Left tends to lead with policy. We can compete on this terrain, but we have to arrive there through a moral frame, one that actually expands agency. This UNASB op-ed is essential reading to understand how: Before the Argument, There is an Instinct.

One obvious place for the Left to lean on moral foundations? Widespread outrage and disgust over the Epstein files. Stuckey references the scandal directly, describing it as ‘the reality of evil…being perpetrated against the most vulnerable’, indicating her audience is already engaged with and disgusted by this story. We can leverage the same moral intuitions—disgust towards the perpetrators, an instinct to protect the most vulnerable from harm, a desire for justice on their behalf—by continuing to demand transparency and accountability for those responsible, including the many perpetrators with ties to the Trump administration.

Accessible language and scripture mimic connection

Stuckey opens with scripture, then positions herself as a relatable older sister who, in girlhood, was also led astray by mainstream culture (Taylor Swift’s “Fearless” album, the Twilight series), but ultimately saw the light and wisely chose a different path. From the spiritual communion of sermon to the intimacy of girl talk, Stuckey speaks directly to the longing for meaning and belonging that people feel so acutely today, in an increasingly atomized and lonely world.

Stuckey also offers community in a space that affirms her listeners’ feelings of overwhelm. She offers them in-group membership as part of, for example, the “never watched Bridgerton” club. For that in-group to exist, there must also be an out-group: those consuming different media, who by extension have different values, and are thus morally compromised.

Making it actionable

We must speak to people’s hunger for meaning, belonging, and relational connection. Language that speaks to people on a human level—to their hearts and souls, not just their heads—is one way to do that.

We can also reframe what the actual threat is. The Left has an opportunity to offer the same sense of in-group belonging, but around a shared enemy that’s actually harming regular working people: tech billionaires, the Epstein class, corrupt politicians. We can create a “we” that’s defined by who we’re protecting ourselves against.

The appeal of benevolent patriarchy as God’s eternal plan

Stuckey’s message resonates because it acknowledges real pain: women’s fears of being alone, alienation from modern culture, uncertainty navigating modern dating and anxiety around partnership. Her refrain “God’s eternal plan is going off without a hitch”, which was mentioned frequently by listeners in the comments section, extends grace even to women who’ve “failed” the purity culture script.

However, she exploits this pain. After making her listeners feel heard and understood, she shifts toward benevolent patriarchy and purity culture as the solution to their problems—or at least a salvation from worrying about them. She reframes self-knowledge as selfish narcissism and lowered expectations of romantic partners as spiritual maturity. She presents this as protecting women, but in reality, it restricts them.

It’s notable how this mirrors Stuckey’s critique in Toxic Empathy that progressives use appeals to compassion as manipulation. She deploys the same tactic here, gently and compassionately addressing real fears, then presenting solutions that ask women to accept less.

Making it actionable

Stuckey’s vision has a critical weakness: it offers no agency. She tells women what to avoid, what not to consume, but she doesn’t offer them anything concrete to do. No path forward, no aspirational vision. This is a weakness the Left can leverage. We have an opening here, to offer women solutions that are aspirational and involve real agency and real choices.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

Thanks for reading! We’re currently accepting new members into our 5th (!!) cohort starting in April. Sign up here!

Subscribe now

CLUB RECAP: Rogan Talks Aliens, Weapons, and Politics with a Tech Billionaire

Max Levy — Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:00:55 GMT

Subscribe now

UNASB made its annual pilgrimage to the Joe Rogan Experience, where we got a deep dive into the tech right’s worldview through the guest, Palmer Luckey.

Luckey is a tech billionaire who invented the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset which was acquired by Facebook (now Meta) in his early twenties. He was fired from Facebook (or was asked to leave or mutually separated, depending on who you ask) at 25 for making a $10,000 donation to a pro-Trump group that ran a “Too Big To Jail” billboard with Hillary Clinton’s face and other anti-Hillary memes during the 2016 election.

Now in his thirties, Luckey runs the weapons and tech manufacturer he founded, Anduril Industries, which has made millions from government contracts and is even more entrenched within the tech right network. Anduril received initial investments from tech right figurehead Peter Thiel, and the company’s early staff included former executives from Palantir, Thiel’s technology and surveillance company.

Rogan and Luckey’s conversation runs for over three hours, and it feels like two dudes hanging out and talking about whatever pops into their minds next. Still, the episode works to paint Luckey as a righteous boy genius living at exactly the right time to use his talents to become massively wealthy and help his country in the process.

Joe Rogan Experience #2394 - Palmer Luckey

Throughout the podcast, Luckey makes specific cultural references — from sci-fi shows to video games to his company Anduril itself, which is named after a sword from Lord of the Rings — that provide a window into the kinds of media that are resonating with a cohort of Millennial and Gen-Z young men. Rogan (who seems to have more bro-y cultural touchstones), doesn’t quite match Luckey’s enthusiasm at all times, but the two talk about The X Files, conspiracy theories, Star Trek, video games, robot battles, talking dogs, and more. These references could get very niche (this nerdy recapper clocked that Luckey was name-dropping a Yu-Gi-Oh character as a fictional technologist he admired without Luckey even naming the anime series itself), but they were mostly from mainstream, not right wing, media.

Luckey still works in conservative talking points into these pop culture discussions, though. He praises Warner Bros. for announcing they will make movies people want to see, and not what he calls “art house social justice money losers” (notably, he doesn’t say ‘woke’). He never uses the actual phrase “DEI,” but he uses a heavy-handed metaphor about choosing the best ratio of men’s to women’s bathrooms in a new office building to ‘prove’ that working towards more gender diversity in male-dominated fields like video games is undeniably stupid. Rogan nods along.

Luckey’s portrayal of his career (and the worldview he developed through it) also consistently reinforces the tech right’s narratives. Luckey celebrates the role of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors as a way to live out his boyhood dreams, gamifying war so it doesn’t feel like it has life-or-death stakes. He breezes past the fact that he’s made billions from government spending and military contracts, describing it as more efficient cost savings. He even says making instruments of war is the morally righteous thing to do (because if a moral person doesn’t make the weapons, someone else will), adding that the best role for the United States would be “to become the world’s gun store.”

And then there’s the actual politics talk. A tangent that starts with Rogan and Luckey talking about the Gulf War ends with them agreeing that Trump is the only man alive who could withstand the physical pressures of the presidency, and they’re off to the races. Luckey shares a story about Clinton advisor John Podesta refusing to answer a straightforward question in a meeting with potential donors in 2015, citing that exchange as the moment he fully turned against the left. Then he talks about how he’s been a longtime Trump supporter by 2016, claiming credibility as both a converted liberal and a Trump fan ahead of his time. Rogan and Luckey may gesture at being independent, but through it all, they are unabashedly pro-Trump, anti-Democrat, and certainly anti-liberal.

Key Takeaways

Luckey presents himself as the (pun intended) luckiest guy in the world. He’s born at exactly the right time to take his childhood love of sci-fi, his self-proclaimed brilliance, and the government’s desire to pay for new weapons in order to get rich doing what he loves. In this way, he gives young men who might not have Rogan’s brawn but Luckey’s brain a future to aspire to —a future that still leads them to the right.

Luckey claims to be the source of truth — both intellectually and morally —without qualms or caveats. He says without batting an eye that the best choice for smart, moral people is to go into weapons manufacturing. He’s convinced that independent corporations should be the only ones making military technology. He’s even got an unimpeachable read on the British psyche and Chinese acceptance of surveillance. Rogan rarely pushes back or asks follow-ups; Luckey is able to hand-wave his source for some military knowledge with an “I can’t tell you how I know that,” and the conversation moves on to another area of Luckey’s expertise.

Luckey finds just enough points of disagreement to paint himself as an independent, credible voice. He calls himself libertarian, doesn’t think the state should be involved in regulating marriage at all (gay or otherwise), and even references a time when he used to work with a liberal nonprofit. He even breaks with other tech-right thinkers by criticizing government surveillance and censorship on social media, and by saying he does think foreign policy decisions should be made by an elected official, not a corporation. Rogan takes these departures from expectations as adding credibility, not marks against it.

Rogan isn’t fully sold on the tech right’s post-human fantasies. While Luckey hypes up robot-on-robot boxing matches (and his long-term backer, Peter Thiel, isn’t convinced the human race should endure at all), Rogan would rather use AI to help humans box better instead. He also seems bored during some of Luckey’s nerdier tangents, suggesting this jock-nerd alliance isn’t fully locked in.

What we (left-leaning people) can learn from this and DO

We can find common ground for conversations with people who are compelled by the tech right, through critiques of bloated military spending.

Luckey, who directly profits from government defense contracts, is willing to say that America’s defense spending is bloated and inefficient. This could be an inroad to talking more about reprioritizing massive military budgets. It could also be an opportunity to talk about what the government is NOT spending money on, like making medication more affordable, fighting monopolies, improving education, or keeping our air and water clean.

Present a compelling vision of the future, and inspire tech innovators to help us make it possible.

Luckey offers a clear, supposedly utopian future through tech. It’s one where we can talk to our dogs thanks to AI, where drones are constantly monitoring to detect and stop wildfires before they get a chance to spread — and yes, where the brightest minds have made the United States the gun store of the world. If we want to bring more people onto our side, we have to give these potential innovators a different vision to work towards. Instead of weapons, what should we be creating? The Abundance-left paints a picture of America with towers of housing, freely available clean energy, and thriving innovation. How can other factions of the left improve their own worldbuilding in the public consciousness? Whatever future vision you may have, talk about it often and in tangible ways, and invite more people in to help you make it real.

Faith is still an important battleground, even with the tech right.

In one of the more surprising moments, Luckey talks about how AI and technology go hand in hand with his devout Christian faith. His faith gives a purpose to his billions and his mission, and AI shows that man can also create something in its own image. Could there be better answers from the left for people asking these same questions?

We have to do better about engaging sci-fi and fantasy fan cultures.

Reading Lord of the Rings or watching Star Trek doesn’t automatically make you conservative — just ask Stacey Abrams (or your recapper, who dressed up as J.R.R. Tolkien for a fourth grade biography night). The left has made some inroads here, like making DC Comics’ Nazi-fighting G.I. Robot into a symbol of anti-authoritarian resistance online, but there’s more work to be done. This fan engagement also needs to be authentic, instead of just playing Madden a week before Election Day to try and reach some gamers. There will always be a contingent of trolls mad about casting a woman or non-white Star Wars character, but there are plenty more apolitical fans out there to find common ground with and bring to our side, too.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

Subscribe now

CLUB RECAP: MAHA’s yearly checkup

Dominique Escandon Valverde — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:03:45 GMT

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our latest meeting. As a reminder, here at UNSAB, we listen to right-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

UNASB turned our attention to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which has been a major conversation driver of that has moved health-conscious voters to the right. There’s no better place to start analyzing the MAHA movement from within than through Alex Clark’s Turning Point USA-backed podcast Culture Apothecary.

The health and wellness-focused podcast with half a million subscribers touts its mission as providing a space where “each guest provides their own remedy to heal a sick culture - physically, emotionally, and spiritually.” The message is stickier than ever– more than70% of her audience in the past year are new listeners.

The selected podcast episode, “Debunking MAHA Lies and Explaining Year 1 Trump Controversies,” features Calley Means, a current HHS senior advisor, wellness entrepreneur, and brother of Trump’s nominee for our country’s next surgeon general.

The conversation was far-ranging, covering topics such as vaccines, pesticides, infertility, and public nutrition assistance. There are repeated references to how untrustworthy food companies and medical experts have become. Means describes MAHA’s success as a “cultural transformation” around health. He tempers expectations of radical, immediate change by offering a parallel to the decades-long mission to overturn Roe v. Wade. He explains, contrary to the evidence, that “research has not been cut”, and instead promotes how MAHA is investing heavily into cancer, microplastics, testosterone, and “food as medicine” research. Means also celebrates major MAHA wins like removing soda and candy from SNAP.

Throughout the podcast, there were many calls to action. Listeners were encouraged to call their lawmakers about food label reforms, send the podcast to a liberal in their life, and question their pediatricians about their children’s prescriptions. The message was clear: MAHA isn’t just policy, it’s a well-organized cultural revival.

Key Takeaways

Health is an effective political conversion tool.

Mothers and families feel overwhelmed by the costs and conflicting information each time they visit a grocery store or doctor’s office. MAHA offers individuals something that looks like personal empowerment, which is so much sexier than believing that the government is invested in the public good. Once you’re in the MAHA movement, you’re part of a community of logical, empathic individuals who are seeking a healthier future, and crucially, you should do everything in your power to support MAGA so that the momentum continues.

Simple is good.

Both Means and Clark emphasize non-controversial, feel-good solutions to complex health issues. Eat more whole foods. Get some sunlight and lots of exercise. Brushed aside are how socioeconomics affects access to these factors, or how well-researched western medicine practices do have their place for those patients who need it.

The right is effective at turning the speaking points of the left around.

The promotion of equity is portrayed as opposite to logic. Public health nuance that takes affordability and equity into account is reduced to claiming that promoting whole foods is racist. Ultraprocessed foods are cast as a construction of the left. “They accuse us of being sexist for suggesting that moms should cook whole food for their kids.”

Trust in medicine, government, and research is incredibly low, and the right does not expect this to change.

Instead, they are planning incremental changes over the next few decades to radically upend what healthcare means in America. Under this system, short-term policy losses are to be expected. They are priming their audiences for the long game.

Making What We Learned Actionable

Fact checking isn’t enough.

MAHA is selling a message of a stronger, healthier, and cheaper future. The left needs to move towards a framework where public health helps you thrive, not just protects you from harm.

MAHA invests in speaking to moms and influencers directly.

The left communicates top-down. By investing in direct storytelling from families or communities, the left can make its message more relatable and accessible.

The rise of MAHA comes from its relatable identity as a group of individuals and families concerned about their health and seeking a system that’s easier to understand.

If Democrats want to compete, they need to build an equally compelling vision of an America where good health is easy and empowering. Cultural movements win when they make people feel strong.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved in UNASB? Click here.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading our latest recap! This post is public so feel free to share it w/ a MAHA-curious friend!

CLUB RECAP: Tucker Carlson, Father of Rage Bait

Aleigh Meredith — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 19:34:56 GMT

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNSAB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

Subscribe now

Before we dive into our latest recap, we want to remind everyone reading this that now is the time to reach out to every apolitical or right-leaning person in your life to make sure they know about the murders and kidnappings in Minnesota (and across the country). When we started UNASB a year ago, we believed long-form persuasion conversations with the people you know was one of the only ways to break through this polarized environment. We still believe that, but know things are moving at a terrifying speed. The time to act is now. Give people in your life the room to change their mind about this administration. If you don’t know where to start, read our op-eds or send us an email at unasbtheclub@gmail.com.

Now, for your regularly scheduled recap...

UNASB interrupted our regular podcast listening to read chapter five of Jason Zengerle’s new book Hated by All the Right People: Tucker Carlson and the Unravelling of the Conservative Mind. Since we recently welcomed a new cohort, it felt appropriate to take a look back at the origins of the conservative media movement and Tucker’s role in it. Zengerle also joined us to answer our questions and discuss his reporting in greater detail.

The book follows Tucker Carlson’s rise through conservative media and his ideological transformation over the past 30 years. Chapter five covers an inflection point in Carlson’s career and in our media landscape: the creation of the Daily Caller and, subsequently, rage bait.

In 2010, Carlson launched the Daily Caller, an online news outlet dedicated to bringing a professional and serious publication to conservative media. In its infancy, the Caller was committed to facts and prioritized journalistic norms. Tucker soon learned that strategy was not conducive to getting clicks or growing an audience, essential for the site’s survival.

The Caller’s staff struck gold when they discovered rage bait

Articles incorrectly implying an unpopular RNC Chair attended stripclubs, and “ousting” the liberal media’s scheming to help Obama win the 2008 election propelled the Caller’s readership and links from other publications. The success of these misleading and inflammatory articles led to a shift in Carlson’s strategy for the Caller. Rather than committing to formal journalistic norms, the Caller began to focus on what could make its readers the angriest (and generate the most amount of revenue). There was blowback and controversy, but what the Caller was losing in credibility with mainstream media (or readers), it was gaining in revenue and a passionate following from its conservative base.

A snapshot of some of the rage baiting titles the Caller has used over the past 15+ years

The evolution of the Caller is a fascinating examination of both Tucker Carlson’s motivations and how the online media landscape incentivizes rage baiting and extremism. He initially founded the Caller on the argument that conservatives were struggling because they refused to put “accuracy” first and instead focused on bombast and opinion in their media. In 2008, he was arguing that media organizations that don’t care about accurate news will fail.

The past 15+ years have shown us that this is simply not true.

The Caller’s success evolved from its original purpose into “a website that would be less about facts and more about feelings”, highlighting how revenue on the internet is generated (clicks, links, shares, etc), fundamentally changed how media organizations, especially entirely online ones, can succeed.

For how much the right accuses the left of being snowflakes, it’s clear they have big feelings too. Carlson, Breitbart, and so many of the conservative thought leaders UNASB has focused on have harnessed and encouraged the right’s anger, fear, and frustration for huge profits and political influence through rage baiting them with clickable titles and misleading or outright fake news.

Tapping into emotions, especially negative ones, has proven wildly effective in our current media landscape and attention economy

This type of media, whether it’s in an online newspaper or a podcast, especially resonates with, and targets, people who feel the status quo is failing them.

During our chat with Zengerle, we discussed why this type of content was so appealing and why the left was so blindsided by the shifts in people’s beliefs it prompted. Zengerle’s response was that it came down to Americans’ distrust, frustration, and anger with our current systems and institutions, which conservative media has been feeding into for nearly 20 years.

Over multiple election cycles, while the right has been infuriating and mobilizing its readers, the left has failed to meaningfully engage with the lived realities of everyday Americans. The politics being offered often do not reflect the pressures people are actually facing, such as the cost of rent, economic insecurity, and day-to-day survival. The left has instead wrongly assumed that people want to protect our institutions despite them being largely ineffective at providing the support and social safety net they need. When approaching the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections through this lens, it is obvious why someone like Trump, who wants to dismantle our institutions, is so popular.

Right-wing media does a great job of validating people’s anger and frustration by leading with emotions. While publications like the New York Times are delivering accurate and thorough news across their platforms, Zengerle noted that, outside the opinion column, they aren’t telling people how they should feel, and more importantly, who they should be mad at. In other words, they don’t rage bait us.

Key Takeaways

The internet favors the extreme.

The crazier sounding, the more absurd the better! In a world oversaturated with content, both people and algorithms are drawn to the most extreme version of an idea. We saw the start of this with The Caller, and it’s only gotten more pronounced as we’ve adapted to short-form content and podcasts.

Emotions are profitable.

Emotions, especially negative ones, are the north star guiding so much of the pundits, podcasters, and commentators on the right.

Conservative media owns their beliefs, no matter how controversial.

Part of the Callers’ and Breitbart News’ success that Zengerle covered in Hated Chapter 5 was that they owned what they were saying and didn’t really care about the backlash. The Caller’s success really took off when they tried to create controversy and make people, not only in their audience but across the political spectrum, mad.

Making what we learned actionable

We can play the blame game too!

The Caller and subsequent conservative publications and podcasts are always ready to place blame on everyone, from the establishment politicians and the LGBTQ+ community to immigrants. If the left were to call out billionaires and really dial in on affordability with the same outrage that conservative media brings to culture war issues, we’d have a far better chance at finding common ground than we currently do. This includes traditional media.

Running a campaign on protecting institutions is not going to win elections.

This was especially apparent during the 2024 election, when the Kamala Harris campaign, which largely centered on saving our political institutions from Trump, didn’t work. Institutions are not working for the vast majority of Americans; the left needs to run on a platform that focuses on making them better, not just maintaining them.

We should be mad and tell other people why they should be mad too.

As mentioned earlier, negative emotions are powerful, and when we can collectively channel our rage toward a common good, we can have a huge impact. A great example of this was this past summer, when Jimmy Kimmel was reinstated by ABC/Disney due to people’s collective Disney+ cancellations and outrage over his unfair firing. Given the kidnappings and murders happening in Minnesota right now, it’s critical that we’re not just angry, but vocal, urging everyone who will listen to be outraged as well. Drown out the Trump administration’s, and right-wing media’s, lies about what’s happening with your voice and the voice of everyone you know.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

Subscribe now

CLUB RECAP: Gas Prices, Scapegoats, and “Real” Americans

Aleigh Meredith — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 21:21:49 GMT

Subscribe now

UNASB kicked off our first meeting of 2026 by listening to the right’s most infamous and influential Bens: Ben Shapiro (The Ben Shapiro Show) and Benny Johnson (The Benny Show). We listened to episodes covering Trump’s December 17 address to the nation to better understand why the Bens are such effective communicators and marketers for the conservative movement.

ICYMI Benny Johnson is a prolific conservative commentator who has written for Breitbart, The Blaze, National Review, and is known to many as “Godfather of the Conservative Internet”. His YouTube channel has 6M+ subscribers and he has 2M+ followers on Instagram. Ben Shapiro’s an establishment figure in the right-wing media ecosystem with 7M+ followers on YouTube and 4M+ on Instagram. He co-founded prominent conservative platform The Daily Wire in 2015, and has described his political views as economically libertarian and socially conservative, and is critical of the alt-right movement.

The Benny Show “Trump BREAKS Internet With Primetime Address, TROLLS Media Into Covering His WINS | 2025 IN REVIEW.”

Benny, who has been steadily rising in popularity among MAGA’s base, has a bluntness the left often lacks. He brazenly scapegoats immigrants, whom he sees as not real Americans, for seemingly every problem most of us are facing.

Lack of community? Immigrants.

High cost of living? Immigrants.

Housing shortage? Immigrants.

No roadside farm stand? Yes, really, it’s immigrants.

Throughout his xenophobic tirade, Benny frames Trump as having obvious, practical solutions that are making America great. In contrast to the havoc immigrants are wreaking on farm stands and housing prices, Trump’s actions during his first year back in office have been a great success. The cherry on top was Trump “trolling” the media into covering his wins during the much-derided end-of-year affordability address.

Benny also has a near-constant interaction with his audience via livestream, which brings us to…

Gas Prices!

In a style reminiscent of Dora the Explorer, Johnson spent much of this episode asking viewers a single, repetitive question and taking notable pauses to wait for those interacting on a livestream to respond.

How cheap is your gas?

Benny comes back to this question about gas prices over and over, interrupting himself to ask viewers how cheap gas has gotten, and reinforcing the idea that any decrease in gas prices is because of Trump. This focus on a gimmicky metric works. As he rattles off deluges of cheap gas prices, he’s also authentically engaging with his audience and calling out the names and locations of those participating in his livestream. This call-and-response format helps him both energize his audience and makes them feel seen.

Repetition of a core message or issue is marketing 101, and throughout this episode, Benny does just this by using immigrants as a scapegoat and gas prices getting lower as definitive proof of Trump’s success. It doesn’t matter that what he is saying isn’t entirely accurate either; his audience is already bought in. Benny isn’t trying to change anyone’s mind; he’s merely reinforcing the beliefs they already have and hyping them up so they feel part of something bigger. He validates his audience by letting them know they are right in blaming immigrants for the very real problems they are facing, and that Trump is the best and only solution they have.

The Ben Shapiro Show, “President Trump Pushes The Affordability “RESET” Button”

In contrast to Benny Johnson’s rising popularity, we have Ben Shapiro, whose approval is starting to decline among the MAGA base. While Benny’s listeners are turning to him for energy and engagement, Ben’s are looking for a more thorough analysis of our current political environment. He talks quickly and emphatically, in an almost sermon-like manner. Unlike Benny, Ben is willing to critique Trump and his affordability address, acknowledging the speech wasn’t perfect. He has a much more nuanced discussion about affordability. Instead of a rap sheet of gas prices, Ben argued that affordability is a feeling, not a tangible metric.

While Benny is quick to scapegoat immigrants, Ben is critical of full-scale anti-immigrant rhetoric and urges his listeners to be more ideological about who constitutes as a real American. Ben argues that what makes America unique is that we are a nation built on ideals, specifically Judeo-Christian ones. Therefore, we should welcome those who share these ideals and want to contribute to them.

This focus on Judeo-Christian values can be deceptive. It may decenter immigrants at large (specifically Jewish/Christian immigrants), but inadvertently shifts blame onto non-Jewish/Christian immigrants, and more broadly onto anybody who may be critical of conservative values, which he repeatedly conflates with American values. Ben’s opinion on immigrants may sound more open-minded than Benny’s, but if you look past his reframing, you can read it as just a more digestible version. His sentiment is the same: people who are different from you are to blame.

Ben’s rhetoric about immigrants ties into his long-term approach to the conservative movement. He’s trying to build a conservative coalition that can withstand an election sans Trump by attracting moderate and conservative-curious voters. While Benny’s content is more aggressive on the surface, Ben’s may be more insidious– he’s padding conservative ideology in an academic-sounding marketing pitch to make it palatable to voters not fully bought into MAGA

Key Takeaways:

Basic marketing tactics are really effective. Ben and Benny both use repetition, pathos/logos/ethos persuasion, and engagement to hype up, engage, and persuade their audiences.

Everyone wants affordable, strong communities. The largest common ground between conservatives and liberals is the concern about the rising cost of living and a lack of community. Conservatives are scapegoating immigrants, and the left doesn’t seem to have an actionable solution.

Confidence is key. Both Ben and Benny ooze confidence, and you don’t have a single doubt about where they stand on any issue they address

MAGA isn’t uniform. Despite both being influential figures within MAGA, Ben and Benny talk about Trump (and to their audiences) in vastly different ways. While Benny is tripling down on xenophobia, Ben is trying to make conservative policies enticing to a broader audience. A subset of MAGA is firmly rooted in the present, relishing Trump’s victories, but there is growing tension among MAGA factions, especially over what the party looks like post-Trump.

Making what we learned actionable

We should both recognize and steal the basic marketing tactics that the right is using.

We need to focus on affordability and building strong communities. These are issues we all face and want solutions to. With the right messaging, they could be especially helpful in getting voters who aren’t fully bought into the conservative movement to vote blue.

Say it with our chest! Left-leaning podcasts and think pieces tend to tiptoe around the point and come across as nervous to take a definitive stand (looking at you, Ezra Klein!). If we can take anything from Ben and Benny, it’s their confidence to just say what we mean, totally unapologetically.

We need to reclaim American values: Republicans love to harken back to our founding fathers and the importance of upholding American ideals. Liberal candidates should lean into this and emphasize how their policies protect and advance freedom, equality, unalienable rights, self-governance, and justice. Right now, conservatives see liberal policies as un-American; we need to change that.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

CLUB RECAP: Wellness, Wedge Issues, & the War for Young Minds

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 18:28:15 GMT

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of what we discussed in our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNSAB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

In our last meeting of 2025, UNASB dove into the depths of PragerU, which, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “specializes in promoting far-right propaganda through professionally produced media.” In case you missed it, there’s a real chance that PragerU’s children’s content will fill a void left by the Right defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which could have a real lasting impact on children.

We watched an episode of Real Talk with Marissa Streit (Streit is the CEO of PragerU), along with 3 YouTube videos aimed at educating young Americans— about the “war on Christmas,” Johnny Appleseed, and Venezuela. Through this content, we saw how PragerU’s content offerings work together to normalize conspiratorial thinking, nostalgia politics, and anti-LGBTQ narratives—all while insisting they’re the reasonable middle.

Subscribe now

Jillian Michaels: Wellness, “Moderation,” and the Extremism Pipeline

What happens when a fitness celebrity becomes a moral authority on health, wellness, and our decaying social fabric? On Real Talk with Marissa Streit, Jillian Michaels leans on her Biggest Loser fame to grant herself credibility—speaking with the confidence of a “health expert” even as she veers into culture-war and political narratives.

Michaels’ leans heavily on her fitness-celebrity halo: decades of “expertise” and parasocial familiarity make her feel like a trusted guide on topics far beyond nutrition. She starts in her expected lane—obesity, calories, “Big Food”—and then hard-pivots into American history, extremism, and gender-affirming care, carrying that credibility with her as she goes.

Her rhetorical pattern mirrors other right-wing influencers we’ve studied: stake out consensus positions (“Nazis bad,” “Stalin bad”) to brand herself as a centrist, then gradually introduce anti-trans conspiracies about “Big Pharma profiting off kids” and claims that young people can’t have the autonomy to self-direct. She distances herself from Nick Fuentes while praising figures like Charlie Kirk, advocating for a “big tent” where the most distasteful extremists are disavowed so that still-extreme policies feel moderate—especially on trans healthcare.

Michaels’ identity as a lesbian, and a mother, is central to the pitch: she frames opposition to gender-affirming care as hard-earned wisdom from a queer parent “concerned about kids,” even as her arguments bolster a movement attacking LGBTQ+ rights more broadly. Melissa, the host of the show, at one point refers to Michaels’ lesbian identity as her “lifestyle.” This combination—calm tone, personal vulnerability, and endless expert name-drops without real scrutiny—lets listeners feel like they’re following common sense.

One point that stuck out for me personally in Michaels’ interview was an apparent split in the MAHA movement. Michaels advocates for a schema of government regulation to be introduced against what she considers to be harmful practices (especially focusing on the “generally recognized as safe” rule), while Melissa takes a more libertarian approach: that content creators should educate people about what is in foods, and they should then be left to make their own decisions.

Here, there seems to be an opportunity for leftists and liberals to engage with MAHA-curious voters. There are many areas where we also believe in regulation and oversight over healthcare and food quality. The catch is: How do we do it in a way that does not compromise other values like trans healthcare in the process?

PragerU Kids: Simple Stories, Big Agendas

PragerU Kids extends the same playbook to younger audiences and the adults around them, packaging ideology as neutral “educational content.” Videos about Venezuela and Johnny Appleseed strip away context to offer tidy cause-and-effect stories: social programs and “big government” are cast as the road to authoritarian collapse, while westward expansion is framed as brave settlers “taming” a wilderness dotted with unnamed Indigenous “threats” that are given no humanity in the framing.

Like the Michaels interview, these kids’ videos claim to be explaining history or civic life, but the emotional core is persecution and partisan fear: Christians under attack, patriotic traditions erased, boys and men marginalized, and any challenge to hierarchy coded as dangerous “socialism” or anti-Americanism. The 2016 “War on Christmas” content turns a retail greeting into a grand conspiracy about cultural displacement, with a Jewish host arguing that “Happy Holidays” is exclusionary—collapsing real questions about pluralism into a demand for centering Christian norms.

This consistent attempt by the right to create a modern American identity that is inherently exclusionary. By framing a so-called Judeo-Christian identity as the only acceptable American identity, PragerU intentionally excludes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so many other religious communities who are central to the American fabric.

Because this material surfaces on kid-facing platforms and is marketed for classrooms and homeschoolers, it becomes especially attractive to time-strapped parents and teachers who may not see the ideological framing underneath. It also does double duty for donors: it advances a long-term project of shaping cultural reflexes (“government help = bad,” “inclusion = erasure”) while demonstrating reach and influence to keep the money flowing.

At their core, PragerU videos serve as a right-wing alternative to real historical data, and thus allow parents who either want to avoid uncomfortable conversations or prefer a sanitized version of history for teaching their children. While branding itself as “real history” and “timeless values,” this content instead flattens complexity into ideologically driven stories that reassure adults that their worldview is factual, patriotic, and safe for kids to internalize unquestioningly.

Recognize that PragerU isn’t just an online media producer. They are a highly organized, well-funded conservative operation, with major donors (per Propublica, they took in $70M last year in revenue, and almost 96% of that came from contributions). Their content strategy is disciplined, scaled, and built to shape young people’s views of the world.

Key Takeaways

Celebrity “moderation” is a powerful on-ramp: Jillian’s calm, relatable persona—and background as a “hippie leftie”—makes extreme claims about youth, gender, and institutions that land as reasonable concern rather than reactionary fearmongering.
Perhaps add something about MAHA continuing to be a salient force for the Right?
The MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement continues to evolve as a key cultural vehicle for the Right. By blending wellness rhetoric with moral and political narratives, it keeps conservative ideas accessible to apolitical or “moderate” audiences—especially those who distrust mainstream institutions.
Kids’ “education” content is doing adult political work: PragerU’s simple stories and manufactured villains create emotionally satisfying explanations that are easy to repeat and hard to fact-check in the moment.
The throughline of belonging under threat: whether the focus is boys, Christians, or patriotic Americans, both Jillian and PragerU build a narrative that “people like you” are under coordinated attack—and that only their version of tradition, purity, and authority can keep you safe.

What You Can Do

When wellness or parenting influencers veer into politics, pause and separate where their expertise ends from where they’re borrowing authority.
With kids’ content, ask consumers of this media to think about who’s the villain, who’s missing, and what emotions the story wants you (or your kid) to feel about government, minorities, and dissent.
Present alternative narratives of authority: We must present evidence driven by actual science, but it needs to be something that resonates with people. We need to tell more stories about scientists, doctors, and researchers, and show the human element behind their work.
If you want a counterweight rooted in public health and evidence, check out and promote factual shows and resources that treat young people as full agents rather than pawns—a space where many of our own UNASB folks are already doing the work.
We need to recognize that groups like PragerU have significant resources and the discipline to spread conservative narratives at scale. Without our own persuasive storytelling, disciplined approach, and strong media infrastructure, we risk falling further behind.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? We’re opening up our 4th cohort on January 5th - Sign up here!

CLUB RECAP: Hollywood Conspiracies, Male Victimhood & Christian Redemption—Candace Owens Goes All In

Nawar — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 21:29:01 GMT

In our last meeting, we listened to “Harvey Speaks: Exclusive Interview On His Retrial” with Candace Owens, where she interviews convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein.

Owens has been busy recasting Harvey Weinstein’s downfall as a grand conspiracy - consistently pushing Weinstein throughout the episode to “name names” and inviting her audience into the framing that Weinstein was “taken down” by establishment figures who wanted him gone. Owens pitches herself as a female voice for men mistreated by the #MeToo movement, carving a lane in the “men are victims too” discourse—an especially potent angle for grabbing attention and relevance in a right-wing space dominated by male podcasters.

Subscribe now

Candace’s insistence that listeners “just believe me” is a common tactic in right-wing spaces. She offers no evidence for her claims and insists that the audience accept her version of truth without deeper scrutiny. The opportunity not to think critically?! In the age of AI, this sounds like an offer many people couldn’t refuse. She strategically plays up the idea that men are casualties of a system eager to punish, building a narrative that positions herself as a champion of those accused, wronged, and, notably, those still sympathetic to perpetrators.

Right-Wing Messaging: Religion, Institutional Trust and (Not) Naming Names

Owens loads her rhetoric with questions without presenting the audience with direct answers - instead focusing on raising doubts in what she determines as official narratives. She’s assertive, gives no wiggle room for doubt, and her delivery is engineered to be highly “clippable,” trading nuance for shareability.

Owens often uses religious rhetoric in her episodes, and this theme continues in the Weinstein interview. She uses language about sin, family, salvation, and redemption throughout the episode - pushing her audience to see Weinstein’s case through a religious frame of a fallen man who the secular left has targeted, rather than a legal frame that truly asks whether or not he was guilty of his crimes. You have to wonder what impact this framing has on a casual listener who also simply feels curious about the world.

The episode spotlights institutional rot: a decaying trust in public figures and organizations that’s only accelerated in recent years. Owens makes the case that those targeting Weinstein have caused the very institutional distrust she’s promoting in her show—a kind of post-truth society narrative in which unseen forces coordinate to “take down” targets. The interview, by design, references names and individuals without going into detail on who they are and why they are relevant to the case, instead choosing to stay at the surface level and focus the audience on how Owens sees Weinstein as having been wronged.

Perhaps most interestingly, Weinstein himself appears to distance himself from some of Owens’s most hardline conspiracy lines. When she asks him to name names of who could have wanted to “target” him, he pivots and avoids that conversation almost entirely. While there are a couple of moments where he seems to engage, Weinstein seems to be invested in maintaining his position as a “liberal” (“I was GLAAD’s person of the year! “) and is hesitant to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole with Owens.

Subscribe now

Conspiracy Hallmarks: Feelings over Facts

There’s a deeper function here: these podcasts act as empathy machines for men who feel that the #MeToo movement was somehow unfair or over-expansive, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Owens tries to fill that “void” of male presence, nodding at the idea that contemporary culture has left men adrift and vulnerable, and creates a personal connection to it by repeatedly referencing that she is the “mother of two sons” in an attempt to create a deeper connection between her and the male elements of her audience.

In a way, Owens’ approach illustrates exactly how conspiracy thinking takes root. Rather than confront the clear evidence against Weinstein, she invites her audience to imagine themselves as potential victims of the justice system—“If it can happen to Weinstein, it could happen to anyone.” This rhetorical move shifts focus from facts to personal vulnerability, a kind of classic emotional tug that has been a hallmark of conspiracy theories since the first one ever popped off. By highlighting her identity as a “mother of two sons,” Owens deepens this emotional resonance, constructing a bridge between her own story and the fears of her male audience.

Owens embodies conspiracy language, painting unseen enemies and coordinated political weapons as forces through which elites prey on regular folks. We flagged hallmarks of the genre throughout—declarative stances, eroding nuance, questions without answers, and building the groundwork for future “revelations” that rarely see the light of day.

Key Takeaways

Investigative Anti-Corruption Content: Audiences are insatiable for stories that blend conspiracy and true crime with political drama -- they flock to exposes like Epstein, corruption in elite networks, and public scandals. Progressives should invest in investigative creators who deliver binge-worthy, fact-based reporting on real abuses of power and systemic corruption, filling the appetite for intrigue from our side while grounded in truth and accountability.

Center Victims’ Stories to Counter Anti-MeToo Narratives: If facts and evidence aren’t enough to change minds in a post-truth environment, progressives must prioritize the emotional, lived experiences of victims of power abuses. By producing content that lets survivors and those harmed by injustice share their stories directly—using podcasts, short videos, interviews, and social posts—we humanize these issues and create powerful counterweights to right-wing efforts that minimize or deny harm. Emotional storytelling can be transformative, winning empathy and credibility in places where statistics alone fail.

Counterbalance The False Empathy Machine: Right-wing podcasts serve as emotional safety nets for men who feel adrift and under attack. Progressives can counter this by extending empathy and community in new and creative ways: spotlighting men who are finding power in positive masculinity, highlighting stories of healing and growth, and fostering a sense of community in online spaces. We can do this both in our digital media and our personal conversations and interactions -- opening up a space where belonging doesn’t depend on reactionary politics.
Share

What You Can Do

Be curious and listen: At UNASB, we often emphasize the need for conversations with those around us. Instead of taking narratives at face value, practice asking genuine questions and listening for the perspectives behind each story. By raising questions at the right juncture, you can encourage people to question narratives like the one Owens outlines.
Explore and Build Trust in Institutions: The erosion of trust is a major theme in right-wing media. To counter this, seek out and share authentic stories of institutions doing good—sometimes in surprising places. For example, one member mentioned how events like community deer hunting can serve as credible opportunities for relationship-building and demonstrate how institutions (government, local clubs, nonprofits) can make a tangible, positive impact.
Create Third Spaces for Empathy and Connection: Help foster “third spaces”—clubs, charities, sports events, and creative venues—where people of all backgrounds feel held, listened to, and valued. You can organize local meetups or participate in mutual aid, or simply invite others to join in spaces where open dialogue is welcomed.
Share

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

CLUB RECAP: MTG Mainstream???

Zoë Jenkins — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 14:02:36 GMT

This week, we listened as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the infamous Republican Congresswoman from Georgia, joined Tim Dillon, comedian and political chameleon, on The Tim Dillon Show. This episode, featuring the queen of conspiracy theories, has been the source of the viral clips leaving many on the left wondering if Marjorie Taylor Greene is not so crazy afterall. While Greene still espoused many of the conspiratorial views she is known for, her new “I hate politics” vibe and populist appeal made her sound more reasonable and palatable than ever.

Common Sense Concerns

Known for talking about conspiracy theories, in this conversation, we were disarmed by Marjorie Taylor Greene’s focus on the common sense concerns she is hearing from her constituents–the Epstein files and healthcare costs. She jumps in early to criticize Republican members of congress who voted against releasing the Epstein files. Greene uses emotional and visceral language to describe the harm caused to these women and calls for the accountability of America’s most powerful named in the files. On healthcare, Greene goes after U.S. aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Argentina–pointing out that this money ought to be used to reduce the price of health insurance premiums.

Her America First position also drives a longer conversation with Dillon about AIPAC “getting our military to fight all their wars for them.” Greene has fractured from her Republican colleagues in her critiques of AIPAC and referring to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide.

MTG leans into her brand of an independent thinker–except instead of sounding conspiratorial, comes across as a rational populist. From decrying the inhumanity of ICE raids and the prison system to concerns of Blackstone buying up houses, MTG frames herself as willing to fight for the average Americans, rather than for the elites as she accuses Republicans of defending. Between her more rationalized perspective on addressing what is wrong with America and her frequent reference to listening to her constituents, this MTG seems to be a far departure from who we are used to seeing in headlines.

Insider-outsider and “I hate politics”

MTG attempts to distance herself from politics as a whole. Over and over again, she repeats the refrain “I hate politics”, despite being a Congresswoman.

Greene’s use of language to underemphasize her role as a politician and instead lean into her identity as a mom and business woman makes her an outsider–which seems to give her a longer leash to criticize Republicans and the administration and embrace nuance in her positions. She uses her identity as a mom to voice concerns about housing affordability and goes so far as to talk about the reliance of the construction on immigrant labor, an admission that seems dangerous to MAGA’s position on immigration. Between complaining about not being invited to the AIPAC “special Israel trip” and pulling out documents from the House floor from her purse, MTG emphasizes her role as an outsider. This insider-outsider position where Greene both is in and criticizes the system reminded us of the personality and approach of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who is able to sound more like “the rest of us” than enmeshed in politics.

Subscribe now

Loves him, Loves him not

In leveraging these critiques, you wonder what this means for her allegiance to MAGA and the administration. Throughout the episode, Greene toes the line carefully–being intentional to say she is MAGA “through and through” but voicing concerns about the actions of Trump and his administration.

This is most clear in how she talks about the Epstein files. Greene is careful to distance Epstein from Trump, clarifying that “he did nothing wrong.” Instead, Greene criticizes her Republican colleagues for a lack of transparency and siding with the powerful, despite the administration’s culpability in the files not being released. MTG also engages in a similar level of noncommittalness when talking about Israel and Gaza. She applauds Trump for the peace deal while simultaneously questioning the U.S. giving weapons to Israel and criticizing the IDF’s brutality towards Palestinians.

Sane-washing

While a passive listen could leave you finding MTG reasonable, a deeper listen reveals how she has developed as a communicator. Through careful language and a “nice Southern mom” vibe, Greene’s appeal to common sense concerns masks subtle oversimplifications and right-wing ideas that makes her come across as far more rational than she is. Greene couches her position on getting rid of the Affordable Care Act and further restricting immigration in a need for incremental change and “off ramps” and gentle explanations that act as reframes.

Despite making herself palatable, there were ways the MTG we remember shone through. When Dillon critiques Trump appointees at the Department of Justice and FBI, Greene goes from blaming insubordinate Obama and Biden hires to accusing Democrats of filling the departments with communists, DEI hires, and “literally insane trans people.” In a similar fashion, her critique of Congress’ unreasonable support of Israel goes from AIPAC funding to complaining that Congress has passed too many resolutions denouncing anti-semitism when what they should do is denounce violence against white men.

What is most eye-opening about this interview is not that Marjorie Taylor Greene has changed viewpoints, but that she has not. “Make America Great Again” has always claimed to prioritize the real concerns of “average Americans”, and Greene is still beating that drum in her concerns about healthcare premiums, housing affordability, and pushing for transparency. However resonant and palatable, this interview also demonstrated that the slippery slope reasoning of scapegoating (notably trans people, immigrants, and Jewish people) is still strong in this thread of populism. These are the same ideas in a new dressing, which is proving effective not only for conservatives but for disaffected progressives like Tim Dillon who is pushing for Greene to run in 2028 (which she cheekily declines).

Subscribe now

Key Takeaways: How should we respond?

Here is what is important in using the common ground that does exist while leaving behind what we don’t want:

We can not be afraid of people coming to the right answers for the wrong reasons. Marjorie Taylor Greene shares many of the concerns of the left, even advocating for prison reform. However, her reasons for doing so, empathizing with January 6th insurrectionists and Geoerge Santos in the case of prison reform, rightfully sets off alarm bells. To make progress in this ecosystem, we need to set aside moral purity and accept allies where we can find them–which means taking the common ground we are being given with MTG and those in her camp.
Build on America First. As many club members mentioned, focusing inwards is typical of times of uncertainty (Roosevelt and the New Deal being an apt example from the left). Americans are struggling to afford basic needs while watching billions of dollars be sent to other countries–and that frustration is shared not only by conservatives, but disaffected Democrats and progressives. There is an opportunity to take that frustration, and rather than turning it into a scapegoating of others, use it to demand government transparency and prioritizing basic needs over benefits to elites.
Make politics easy and relatable again. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s strength in this episode is how it feels like a conversation with your mom at the kitchen table. She uses simple explanations, relies on emotional appeals, and acknowledges gray areas in a way that sounds human. The left can learn from Greene and cultivate compassionate messengers who sound human and rely on pre-existing relationships and credibility while making our positionally obvious.
Share

What UNASB Members are Listening to

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

CLUB RECAP: The Gov’t is Shutdown but the Christian Revival is Here

Marilyn — Wed, 22 Oct 2025 20:25:07 GMT

In our latest meeting, we listed to The Isabel Brown Show’s Oct. 2nd episode “Speaker Mike Johnson on the Shutdown, Marxist Dems, & Why Gen Z is Getting Based” and the The Charlie Kirk Show’s Sept. 29th episode “Continuing the Revival Charlie’s Martyrdom Started”.

Isabel Brown is a conservative Gen-Z content creator who recently launched her own show on Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire network. She came up under the tutelage of Kirk’s Turning Point USA and, similar to previous UNASB subject Brett Cooper, is part of a wave of young female voices the Right is propping up to appeal to new audiences. She’s a self-described “full-time creator, author, corgi enthusiast” with “unfiltered takes on everything from faith to dating, politics to food, and just about everything else.”

Subscribe now

A more palatable version of the ‘truth’, politics light

Brown focuses on the government shutdown, why Democrats are at fault, and pitches some friendly—dare I say ~flirty?!—softball questions to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson in a sit-down interview at the Capitol. From her Americana-themed pop art background to her giggly “I’m no budgetary expert” interview style, Brown serves up a dish light on politics and substance but heavy on likability, approachability and friendliness. She’s a lot more palatable than recent UNASB subjects Nick Fuentes or Matt Walsh, playing a kind of Christian everywoman who happens to have a thriving career but also upholds church values and puts family first. Her character is accessible—she’s trying to simply learn more about the government and politics! Which conveniently frees her from the responsibility of pushing back on Johnson’s spin of the shutdown.

Nonthreatening, polite, and amicable; Brown is an effective mouthpiece for a Christian Right aiming to appeal to a broader swath of women who may be put off by some of the more extreme (*ahem* misogynistic) wings of the party. Here, Brown shows it’s okay to be traditional, to make your husband dinner, AND you can have a cool job as a journalist who gets scoops from the Speaker of the House! See, women really can have it all!

Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom and the forthcoming Revival

Where Brown offered an accessible version of Republican talking points, this episode of The Charlie Kirk Show goes full sermon, arguing that we are at a divine inflection point that will reshape the nation and the world. It’s Christian revival time, baby!

Andrew Kolvet, self-described best friend of the late Kirk and longtime Executive Producer of the show, appears to be stepping up as the leading voice and is today joined by evangelical pastors Mark Driscoll and Josh McPherson. Together, they discuss Kirk as a martyr, his death as a “moment” that is quickly shaping up into a “movement,” and how their listeners can hopefully turn that movement into revival.

The episode embodies a consistent theme UNASB-ers have noted across the right-wing podcast spectrum: the ease and effectiveness in tapping into feelings over facts. There is very little here about politics, current events, or even Kirk’s actual beliefs and teachings. The messaging is simple: Kirk was a loving father and husband who put his faith above all, he was taken from the earth by a pernicious force of evil, but the silver lining is that people around the world are waking up to Jesus’s teachings in the wake of his death. The episode opens with several minutes of clips from ordinary Americans saying they felt called to go to church for the first time in years since Kirk’s death, followed by anecdotes from both pastors about churches exploding in attendance, with lines around the block.

It takes about an hour to approach anything remotely political, but tucked inside all the theological talk Driscoll and McPherson do make two directives clear: faith leaders must not shy away from talking about politics at church and other religious settings and instead convey that anyone against Kirk and the Republican party is simply demonic. And, in that vein, Christians must throw their support behind the ordained leaders God has placed in the government to lead us: JD Vance, of course, but also non-Christians like Tulsi Gabbard and Stephen Miller who are positioned as unwitting allies to the movement. (Notably, Trump’s speech at Kirk’s memorial, where he directly challenged Erika’s message of forgiveness to say he hates his enemies, is not discussed.)

Key takeaways: How do we fight back/what action can we take?

The Christian Right has weaponized religion. We must find ways to reclaim faith, spirituality, and morality on the left if we want to appeal to a broad swath of a deeply religious electorate—which includes not only (white) evangelicals but immigrant (Hispanic) communities who are staunchly Catholic and the Black Church across the South. We discussed figures such as Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Texas state legislator James Talarico as Democrats who speak openly about their faith. How we can uplift these folks more and find more religious messengers on the Left?
- At the same time, we want to be sure to not alienate those in our coalition who are not religious. The focus should be on tolerance, empathy, and compassion. We cannot simply copy the same playbook as the Christian Right but must find our own authentic version of tapping into faith and morality as political motivators.
We need to build more Third Spaces comparable to the Church. Churches have a relatively low barrier to entry—they’re free, local, and ostensibly welcome everyone. How can we invest in more of our own ‘third spaces’ to mobilize the Left? Ex: sports events, more inclusive churches, bars and restaurants, concerts and musical venues, fitness spaces, mutual aid groups & charity, trade schools in addition to colleges and universities, etc.
The Right often highlights feelings over facts, connecting with people’s strong reactions and emotions to events rather than talk about data and logic. We can put our feelings and emotions out there, too, to give others something to relate to while still being grounded in truth. We can give people a calm from the storm and chaos where they can feel comfortable and supported. The Christian Right is turning away from tolerance and empathy, and we need to embrace those values and be our own counter to the Christian persona of a “happy warrior.”
Control our own narrative. Reframe freedom as the ability for the average American to live life as they please, such as being able to afford to buy a house. Put dollar amounts on the harmful actions of Republicans and dollar amounts on actions we take to help. Be as specific as we can in the stories and examples we share.
Subscribe now

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

CLUB RECAP: White Nationalism, Male Rage, and Economic Anxiety with Nick Fuentes

britswitz — Fri, 03 Oct 2025 15:59:24 GMT

Welcome back to Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath (UNASB)! For those who are new to us, we’re a group of people across the country who regularly come together to listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach. This newsletter serves as a recap of our meetings.

This week featured Nick Fuentes, a White Nationalist and far-Right-wing political commentator, and two separate clips “Trumpism is Officially DEAD” and “I Am DONE With the ‘Trad’ Sphere.” Both of these episodes explored themes of the American Dream and its decay, grievance politics, and masculine identity, and featured Fuentes’ unique style of anger, humor, and stand-up-like rants.

For those of you who may not know, Fuentes rose to fame during the 2016 election as a Trump supporter and for his involvement in the 2017 tiki torch “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. He is known for promoting his “America First” ideology that is racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LBGTQ, and anti-civil rights. In recent weeks, Fuentes has experienced a new wave of notoriety following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Subscribe now

White Nationalism as an Identity First

For Fuentes and his supporters (known as Groypers), White Nationalism comes first and foremost. Most (if not all) of the Right-wing podcasters we have covered in the past tend to anchor their beliefs to MAGAism, Republicanism, or Christian Nationalism. Fuentes stands slightly apart because he goes farther than some of his peers by loudly and proudly casting women, immigrants, people of color, and Jewish people as the forces responsible for stripping men of power, identity, and purpose.

These are the tactics Fuentes uses that UNASB clocked – ones we’ll break down in even more detail below:

He calls out other Right-wing figures for not going far enough to position himself as an outsider and a truth-teller
Centers his view around a singular enemy, reinforcing a clear “us vs. them” dynamic for his followers
Masks radicalization with humor, using laughs to make rage feel justified and normal
Pushes his extremist White Nationalist views and his vision of a “true” America (White, traditional, Christian)

His loyalty isn’t to the Republican Party – it’s to his vision of a “true” America

In both clips, this was on full display as he criticized Trump, JD Vance, Matt Walsh, Vivek Ramaswamy, Peter Thiel, and more, and how these Republicans haven’t done enough to “oppose liberal values.” By targeting establishment Republicans for what he views as their failure to protect the “true” America, he leverages this anti-establishment rhetoric to strengthen his appeal as an unfiltered truth-teller.

By positioning himself as an outsider, Fuentes is able to tap into the deep-seated distrust of institutions, validate his audience’s grievances, and facilitate a more radical shift in the conversation without losing them.

It sends the message: “The people in charge failed you. I won’t.”

Beneath the surface of Fuentes’s bigotry lies a deeper appeal to economic frustration and cultural disillusionment – especially among young men who feel left behind.

Nick is proudly Gen-Z. His identity, mixed with his criticism of MAGA, made UNASB wonder, “What will the next generation of MAGA look like?” If the Left doesn’t start winning over the next generation, then the next generation may look far more extreme than MAGA.

Subscribe now

Economic Anxiety, the American Dream, and Male Identity

Not too long ago, purchasing a home felt achievable for many Americans. Now, the American Dream feels out of reach. Fuentes frames young men as victims of cultural and economic decline, offering them a narrative of stolen power.

His use of gender roles and economic populism sparked UNASB discussions about how this gives Fuentes broad appeal to wide audiences, including people from both the Right and Left. This tactic allows him to simplify complex societal issues into a digestible narrative of blame and betrayal, turning legitimate frustration into radicalization.

In “I Am DONE With the ‘Trad’ Sphere,” Fuentes’s commitment to White Nationalism naturally extends into gender politics, where he frames empowered women as threats to the cultural order of a “true” America and how empowered women have turned traditional gender roles into a “trap” where men have “all of the responsibility but none of the authority.”

UNASB members noted this rhetoric resonates because it fills a vacuum, especially when the Left critiques toxic masculinity but rarely offers something meaningful to replace it. For young men feeling adrift – especially as traditional roles like “provider” and “protector” shift – figures like Nick Fuentes offer clarity, blame, and belonging, even if it’s rooted in resentment and hate.

This was an area where UNASB agreed that we could win some of these people over and prevent more people from joining Fuentes by:

Offering disillusioned young men a bolder vision of the future (leading with an emotional appeal, not facts and figures)
Presenting them with healthier male role models
Redefining the villains who are causing this uncertainty by clearly identifying the systems responsible, so we can move them away from scapegoating women, people of color, and immigrants

Humor and Hate

Nick Fuentes’s delivery style is intentionally informal and emotionally charged, designed to feel more like a group chat than a political broadcast. Fuentes masks his racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and antisemitic remarks by presenting them as edgy or provocative jokes. He’s “just telling it like it is.”

UNASB members noted that his use of humor, sarcasm, and exaggerated storytelling creates the illusion of venting with the bros rather than indoctrination. This tactic lowers the guard of his mostly young, male audience, making them feel seen, validated, and part of an inside joke.

In “Trumpism is Officially DEAD,” he eases his audience into the discussion by absolutely roasting Donald Trump for being a grifter, adding that MAGA cheerleaders will “eat garbage out of a garbage can and say, ‘thanks, can I have more?’” Later, he pivots to more extreme, racist, and homophobic views. Fuentes rants, “the [Trump] government is filled with Indians, gays, and Neo-Cons” and “the number of illegals is now higher than it was when we started, and it doesn’t seem they’re going to be deported.”

We explored how the Left can better harness humor and emotional resonance to make our message more influential and less preachy. Instead of sounding like Party scripts or corporate statements, we need to ~be normal~ and have fun. This isn’t about being right in debates, it’s about building a movement people actually want to belong to. That includes showing grace to men who feel lost in today’s world and giving them something to move toward.

Subscribe now

Key Takeaways: What Can We Do?

Rather than abandoning these audiences to the far Right, we have a chance to offer a new path: one grounded in belonging, fairness, and shared purpose. That starts with changing how we talk and what we offer:

Give disillusioned young men a bolder vision of the future and healthy male roles. Extend grace and empathy to men who are struggling to find their place in the world.
Use humor and emotion to discuss what is happening in the world, so our message is one that influences, not lectures, and doesn’t sound like Party indoctrination or corporate speak. (E.g.: Hasan Piker, Governor Newsom Press Office, I’ve Had It Podcast)
Redefine the villains causing economic uncertainty by clearly identifying the systems responsible. Explore economic populism, the grievances many have about our economy for their economic hardship, and move them away from scapegoating women, people of color, and immigrants. (E.g.: Bernie Sanders, More Perfect Union)

CLUB RECAP: Matt Walsh on Guns, God, and Gender

Mandy Harris — Sun, 14 Sep 2025 20:13:07 GMT

This episode was a return to form for the club — our last few meetings have covered less obvious right-wingers and focused on the themes and tactics used by the “I’m not really a political person but…” brand of right-wing podcaster. For this one we brought together newbie and OG club members in mixed groups to listen to The Matt Walsh Show's August 28th episode, in an effort to better understand who and what the right is discussing right now outside of Trump and Epstein. Trigger warning: The answer is dark, and this episode gets into heavy themes surrounding anti-trans and LGBTQ+ rhetoric and gun violence.

Before we dive in, some context to ground this analysis: We listened to and discussed this episode after the Annunciation shooting in Minnesota, and before the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk in Utah and the school shooting at Evergreen High School in Colorado. Our discussion was centered heavily on right-wing talking points and perspectives on gun violence and gender identity, but did not reflect the complex aftermath of both September 10 events. (And yes, all three of these things happened in a 2-week timeframe; this makes the conversations we’re having in this club more crucial than ever). You can read more on how UNASB is processing Charlie Kirk’s shooting here.

As the episode title suggests (“Trans Shooter Murders Catholic Kids As The Trans Terrorism Epidemic Continues”), this one was an incredibly challenging listen. Unlike in other recent episodes we listened to, UNASB members didn’t set out with the mission of finding common ground with Matt Walsh and his audience; instead, we centered ourselves in the club’s mission:

Know what “the other side” is saying/what’s happening
Discover the patterns of what they’re saying
What do you do with this information?

With that in mind, let’s get into it.

Subscribe now

EVERY MATT FOR HIMSELF

In his hour-plus monologue, far-d podcaster, Daily Wire contributor, and prominent anti-trans commentator Matt Walsh leads followers down an alarming path. He sets up false norms (being transgender is a mental illness, the US is a Christian nation, the media is conspiring against you), and uses them to guide his audience to an incredibly dangerous conclusion (there’s a trans terrorism epidemic, your family is not safe, “trans ideology” must be “eradicated”). A few themes UNASB clocked in his wide-ranging narrative:

Otherize, otherize, otherize: Walsh equates being trans with being mentally ill, hammering home that anything other than hetero, white, cis, Christian is different and therefore to be feared. As UNASBers pointed out, this is the same text, different font that’s been used against the LGBTQ+ community for years — otherize, and use that fear of difference to strip away rights.

Matt’s a dad, so weed is bad: Walsh credits his family doubling in size with pushing him even farther to the right in recent years, and repeatedly uses his role as a father as a shield and justification for his far-right political views — a strategy and talking point we see a lot in the conservative Christian community in particular. UNASB consensus was that this is meant to make him feel more relatable and empathetic to his audience. It’s also a dangerous tactic:.
- A) It greatly diminishes the concept of community outside of the nuclear family.
- B) Shaping policy around personal preferences (i.e. not wanting your children to smell weed or see people with green hair) is not a logical or sustainable way to run a society.

Protect the children, give more people guns: Walsh (and likely every person listening) agrees that something must be done to protect kids from gun violence. And that’s where the common ground for UNASB and Matt Walsh ends. Casting children as perpetual targets, Walsh echoes a common right-wing talking point that the solution is to arm more adults and strip rights from already vulnerable communities. This weaponizes both parental fear and the language of “community” — defined narrowly here as the hetero, nuclear, Christian household.
Subscribe now

IN THIS HOUSE WE MIND OUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS

We all agreed this type of rhetoric — highly emotional, irrational, and rooted in fear vs. facts — is hard to combat. But we landed on a few messaging tactics we’d all like to leverage within our own networks and communities, and that we’d like to see used within the Democratic coalition at large:

Lead with “yes and”

UNASBers agree that creating ultimatums or forcing a black-and-white view of a complex situation won’t win over hearts and minds. Lean into that improv class you took in college, and lead with “yes, and…” —

Yes, pray for these families. AND demand action and policy change.
Yes, love and protect your family. AND take care of your community at large.
Yes, be a manly man if that’s important to you. AND take care of your trans and LGBTQ+ friends.
Yes, have your facts and stats at the ready for these conversations. AND be prepared for them to fall on deaf ears if someone has already made up their minds. As one UNASBer called out, “Some people use statistics the way a drunk person uses a lamp post — for support rather than illumination.” Be ready to appeal to emotion and humanity to get your point across.

Reclaim faith, family, and individual choice

The left has largely ceded Christianity and parenthood as rhetorical ground to the right. Meanwhile, the right is painting Christians as martyrs under attack, and weaponizing parenthood to push for restrictive and intolerant policies. All Dems can take a page from Texas Rep. James Talarico and re-center Christian ideals where they make sense — reminding the right, for example, of the contradictions and hypocrisy embedded in claiming to be a Christian, while advocating for the eradication of a population. Also embedded in these right-wing ideals and values: the freedom of individual choice. Press right-wingers in your lives for insight into why they’re fixated on how someone else is choosing to live their lives and echo Gov. Tim Walz’s stance on IVF when it serves the conversation: “Mind your own damn business.”

Humanize, don’t just quantify

Walsh leans on emotional stories for his rhetoric; we can too, instead of only relying on statistics and data. Stats can fall flat with audiences already primed to distrust them, but human stories and lived experiences can cut through the noise. UNASBers agree Dems should uplift representatives of the trans and LGBTQ+ community at large, parents of trans and nonbinary kids, and other groups being demonized by the right. As one clubber pointed out: Just because this isn’t the left’s top winning issue doesn’t mean we should stop standing up for trans people. Humanize and hold that line in the sand.

Hold our leaders accountable to do their jobs

Walsh spent considerable airtime ripping apart progressive media for the talktrack “thoughts and prayers are not enough” to stop another school shooting. This messaging was easy to take out of context and clearly didn’t land. One UNASBer elegantly pointed out that while we should advocate for both prayers AND policy, we expect our elected officials to do the jobs we hired them for. We rely on faith leaders for prayers and words of comfort; we expect our elected officials to prioritize legislative solutions.

Subscribe now

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

CLUB RECAP: Peter Thiel, The Billionaire Behind the Curtain

Cat Stern — Mon, 08 Sep 2025 15:09:32 GMT

Taking a detour from our more ‘mainstream’ right-wing shows, last week, we listened to an hour-long NYT interview to learn more about the man behind the curtain, Peter Thiel. If you don’t already know, Peter Thiel is a billionaire, founder of PayPal and Palantir, infamous destroyer of the online publication Gawker, an early donor to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign starting in 2016, and most importantly, one of the biggest investors in right wing podcasts and media right now.

From start to finish, the interview was a pretty wild ride, including his claim that Greta Thunberg could be the anti-christ. But the main focal point, and driver of his investments, is his belief that since the 70s, we’ve lived in technological stagnation (I should also mention that hippies seemingly scare him). While I’m not here to point out why I think he is ignoring some pretty major innovations – ya know, the internet, artificial intelligence, and I don’t know one of the most important medicinal breakthroughs of, well ever, GLP-1s. But what he truly believes is that Trump is his best bet to ending stagnation through de-regulation, and that is why he has funded right-wing politics and media, particularly on content focused on reaching young people.

Kind of like a MAGA Wizard of Oz (sorry Jeff Goldblum), Peter Thiel is the man behind the curtain. This begs the question, sir, why are you hiding? Because, well, it serves him to remain in the background. Generally, the more someone gets to know Peter Thiel, the more they start to kind of hate him. He has the opposite of mass appeal, he has a niche following of investors who’ve profited from his ventures, members of the red pill community who see themselves in him, and Gen-Z conservatives who idolize billionaire “dropout” myths.

Billionaires like Peter Thiel should be at the forefront when we talk about villains in our society (certainly not each other) and in this way they offer us as progressives an opportunity. The goal of UNASB listening to this interview, and learning about Thiel, is to empower our members and folks reading this, to really understand who he is, someone who wants to focus on bettering the life of Peter Thiel and Peter Thiel only. Don’t let his intellectual simlish fool you, he is all performance and no logic. Here are some messaging we can use when talking about him with others.

Subscribe now

Out-of-touch Technocrat

Billionaires like Peter Thiel have no interest in helping real people here on earth, they will drain everything they can out of it before plotting their escape to another planet. He uses Christianity to frame his desire for technological advancement as if it's really to better humanity, when it’s really just about his getting more money, more power, and more control.

Peter Thiel puts his own short-term, self interest before anything else. He’s focused on conquering Mars so he can create a Libertarian paradise with his bestie, Elon Musk, and cryogenics because of his deep, personal fear of aging. During the interview, he paused for nearly 20 seconds when asked if the human race should survive, further proof that Thiel is completely out-of-touch with the issues that Americans are actually facing. We don’t need a new planet to live on or a bio-hacked body, we need good paying jobs and access to health care here on earth.

The Creep State

Thiel’s a creep, Thiel’s a weirdo. He’s proposing Chinese government level surveillance of the American people while claiming to hate communism and/or a centralized government. His vision for an innovative future feels a lot less like progress and more like an episode of Black Mirror – creepy, dystopian, and designed to make people easier to control.

Peter Thiel doesn’t come off as a visionary at all in these moments, he seems hyper-paranoid, unrelatable, and in all seriousness, like he should be wearing a tinfoil hat. It’s giving Disney villain in the worst way.

Expose the Fraud

Peter Thiel loves a government handout. He’s made billions of dollars off of the current administration, while he rails against the federal government and its workers. He constantly complains about stagnation while he continues to support an administration that is actively defunding scientific research, while pushing to roll back environmental protections, regulation, safety, and labor protections for workers.

He tries to sound profound when asking questions like ‘is your life better than your parents’... when we know Peter Thiel is a rich guy who had a rich dad (although, not as rich as he is now) who has benefited tremendously from the structure of our current society. It’s a way for him to sound ‘cool and contrarian’ while completely side stepping accountability when it comes to wealth distribution and inequities in this country.

The 2025 Version of an “Oil Baron”

The left needs to find our version of an “oil baron” for billionaires like Peter Thiel and stick with it – and then say it over and over again. Tech baron, data lord, silicon overlord, absolute freak, take your pick. We need to shout it from the rooftops to have the term create a picture in people's mind and generate an association to the phrase. Repetition is our friend.

Emphasize the Hypocrisy

If you haven’t gotten this from what’s been covered so far, Peter Thiel is pretty much a walking contradiction. He has some out-there views and his conservatism is often at-odds with his radical, almost science fiction-esque ideas. On one hand, he champions his businesses and investments with a complete lack of concern for morality and/or the broader impact on our environment and society. But then he conveniently slips into cosplaying a good Christian, when it’s convenient and fits into his ideological narrative.

He also openly embraces transhumanism, literally enhancing or even redesigning the human body with technology to overcome aging, yet he doesn’t give the same respect to transgender people when it comes to bodily autonomy. In the end, Peter Thiel’s contradictions reveal what he really cares about, whatever happens to benefit him the most.

Subscribe now

Peter Thiel is an out-of-touch, ultra-rich guy obsessed with power and control, to the point of paranoia. He is a part of a small group of technocratic oligarchs hell bent on replacing humans with robots and draining earth's resources before running off to mars to live forever.

The progress Peter Thiel focuses on is completely short-term and only benefits his pockets and others at the very top. When we talk about him and billionaires like him, we need to tell the American people who they really are, and instead offer an optimistic future that can actually make life better for real people, like access to healthcare, affordable rent, and cheaper groceries (not putting people’s brains on cyberborgs or whatever).

CLUB RECAP: Not So Strange Bedfellows: Tucker Carlson and Ana Kasparian Really Don’t Give a F*ck

Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:41:35 GMT

This week, the entire group dove into an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show featuring Ana Kasparian, an executive producer and host of The Young Turks, the long-running digital news platform. For anyone needing a refresh: The Tucker Carlson show, airing across audio platforms and on Youtube, launched in 2024 following the hosts’ firing from Fox News. Since its founding, he’s hosted both holocaust deniers and Ted Cruz – among other guests – and has built it into one of the most popular conservative podcasts available with 4.4M subscribers on YouTube, to date. This episode with Kasparian gained 1.6M views in three weeks, as of this writing.

Subscribe now

Inside the Episode: The Tucker Carlson Show with Guest Ana Kasparian

The pair covered a wide range of topics in the over 90 minute episode: Epstein, the genocide in Gaza, the dwindling of American sovereignty, cancel culture, and the Armenian genocide – just to name a few. And they were more friendly, and seemed to have more in common, than their respective audiences would think. Let’s get into it!

A United Front

Everyone seemed clear on their roles in this episode: Tucker was the mild-mannered moderator and agreeable host and questioner. Ana served as the passionate firebrand who refused to be pigeonholed or told what to do. They kept things civil and avoided any topics that would cause too much discord or disruption by not diving too much into specifics, even when discussing the Epstein files and Gaza which were two topics they seemingly agreed on. Our club debated if this approach was a rung on a ladder that Tucker’s audience could climb toward the left, or was Ana’s rubber stamp what they needed to hear to feel validated in their existing beliefs.

Know the Audience

Ana explicitly stated that she came on the show to have the opportunity to address the ‘everyday people’ she believes are in abundance within Tucker’s audience; as someone who lives in a city, she’s been ‘blinded’ to a lot of the realities of ‘real’ America. She never bulldozed Tucker’s POV and would conveniently ignore or circumvent some of his more right-wing talking points. She pivoted very effectively throughout the conversation and made a point of tying most of what she was saying back to an economic populism or American sovereignty message – two themes that are reddest of meat to this audience. Similarly, when discussing foreign policy, she highlighted incidents in the Middle East pertaining to the marginalization and oppression of Christians in the region to tap into the audience’s personal outrage and background.

Build Trust by Taking Things Back

Even further, by taking back her previous views on defunding the police, (she’s since realized that taking money from law enforcement ‘only costs the taxpayers more’), Kasparian built trust by ‘owning where she was wrong’ and showcasing an evolved POV that reflects a shared humanity and evolution to which anyone can relate. I mean, haven’t we all said something we didn’t mean? Moments like this allow people to see themselves in the same behavior, and conveniently reflect the sentiment of Tucker’s general audience who, like the host, have been vehemently against any budget cuts to law enforcement.

There is No Aisle

The Establishment serves both sides and Democrats and Republicans are more closely aligned in how they think and operate than regular Americans would like to believe. Both sides are aligned against everyday people and we need to lose the labels of ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ in order to move forward. The system is fake, and there is no greater societal ill than partisan hackery. Gavin Newsom is a ‘snake oil salesman’ and a ‘sociopath,’ Ted Cruz an idiot, and Joe Scarborough is apparently evil; there are shared enemies across all sides of the political spectrum. And they are all propped up by ‘traditional’ or ‘legacy’ media who share a vested interest in maintaining the oppressive status quo.

Cancel Culture isn’t Real, because Real People Change their Minds

Ana was ‘radicalized by the left’ before she started seeing the light on many of her opinions and Tucker is a self-proclaimed ‘former neo-con’ who has since realized the ‘evil’ nature of some of his former viewpoints. They both acknowledge, and seem to relish, that their ability to engage with people who have vastly different ideas from themselves will potentially upset people. Ana was most passionate when expressing that she refused to fall into any niches and won’t be told what to do or whom to talk to, by anyone. Cancel her if you wish!

Overall, a quote long attributed to Walt Whitman, and more recently popularized by benevolent mustachio Ted Lasso, ‘be curious, not judgmental’ seemed to be both the key theme of the episode and an overall direction for how to engage this audience and rebuild coalitions.

Rooting your POV in what’s best for America and its values is what makes ideas resonate
Don’t tell me what to do, who to associate with, or where I can be because that’s unamerican and rattles the bedrock of our sovereign society.
Everyone is ignoring the shared enemies of a growing technocracy, the stripping of rights, the consolidation of power, and the open proliferation of facism – focus on those real foes and start building bridges from there.

Because independence is freedom and what’s more important, and American, than that?

Subscribe now

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING:

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

CLUB RECAP: How Right-Wing Creators Harness the Unknown to Shape a More Individualistic Worldview

Lisa Michel — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:37:32 GMT

Welcome back to Unfortunately Not A Sound Bath! Here at UNSAB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen its own approach.

We also have two “tracks” here: the newbies (who are just getting started in the club) and the OGs (who have been here a minute). In order to make sure everyone gets a comprehensive base of knowledge, these two groups listen to different podcasts. This newsletter serves as a recap of what we discussed in our last meeting.

Subscribe now

THE NEWBIES RECAP: THEO VON AND CANDACE OWENS

The newer members of the club (“newbies”) traveled back in time during this week’s UNASB meeting to a March episode of “This Past Weekend with Theo Von”. They say to understand the current moment, you have to look at history, and, boy did we learn some “history” during 2.5 hours of unscripted chit chat with Theo’s guest speaker, the one & only Candace Owens.

INSIDE THE EPISODE

Vibing & Laughing. Together, they poked fun at others and themselves, allowing the listener to feel like they’re vibin’ amongst friends. You’re taking it all in, nodding along, ultimately losing yourself in the conversation – a powerful (and scary) tool when that conversation is telling you America is failing because of multiculturalism.

Being Relatable. Theo Von – just a good ol’ boy sporting a mullet, who self-deprecates about his humble beginnings, and is always armed with a well-timed joke about putting his “dick in hospice during Me Too”. Did I chuckle? Yes. Did I hate myself for that chuckle? Also, yes, but admittedly less than I thought I would. Along with his more theatrical aspects, Theo is also passionate about affordable, transparent healthcare. It’s a fascinating juxtaposition, and one many liberal listeners are unfamiliar with.

They didn’t tell you how to feel, just how they feel. Unsurprisingly, they weren’t concerned with being offensive or saying the “ right” thing. At times, they actively defied stereotypes of what conservatives traditionally believe and even criticized the GOP. The result was relatable, refreshing, and engaging.

Knowing the Audience. Perhaps most importantly, Candance & Theo understand their audience and they act accordingly. A great example: Candace routinely asked to be fact checked, prompting Theo & the interns to go to the monitors and Google whatever she was talking about, ultimately reading some Wiki page about Project Mockingjay. Guess what? When I want to look something up, I do the same damn thing. This approach connects with listeners -- and doesn't feel like a barrier to entry.

We on the left need to untether ourselves from outdated standards and operating procedures. Old school rules are over, they’re done & dusted. We’re on the 2025 playground doing things like finger hearts and trading Labubus (maybe). Either way, let’s *actually* talk about the things people care about and in a way that makes sense to them.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

People love yapping, laughing, and having fun! Having a format that mirrors real-life convos makes a lot of sense. When you sit down at dinner with friends, do you have a scripted agenda where you clearly define each topic and hard pivot when you’re finished? There’s an immediate authenticity and credibility that emerges when news, jokes, personal anecdotes, and pop culture all blend together.
Multiple things can be true at once. Candace Owens spreads horrible, hateful views that go against everything I believe in and we are both staunchly against the genocide in Gaza. Theo Von can be a dodo bird, but I deeply empathize with his frustration at the two-party system and how he doesn’t feel reflected in either.
The left needs to stop with the absolutes. “We are good, they are evil.” “Everyone who voted for Trump is shit & deserves this hellscape we are experiencing and the rest of us are victims.” During our principled fight against the "bad guys", we’ve become the bullies we lamented and have seemingly lost sight of what we were fighting for.
Shared humanity is really important. We have to go back to the fundamentals of what we believe in - human rights, the ability to access healthcare and education, protecting our planet, a country where everyone is actually free to live whatever life they want - and start to connect on that basis. The only path forward is to help the Theo Vons of the world imagine a better future where he, and everyone who feels left behind by the Democratic party, can thrive. Everyone except the super mega rich.

Overall, an extremely effective weapon the right-wing content machine has harnessed and deployed is content, specifically podcasts, that are not overtly political. Instead, they give you a big scoop of culture and current events with a smattering of politics, with a dash of conservative ideology on top. Over time, the result is a level of numbing and normalization that ends up feeling like maybe there is a “silent majority” and it’s where I belong. They pull you in through normal conversation, they flow from just chatting about their lives, things like Candace’s pregnancy and travel plans, before diving into a whirlwind of Trump policies, conspiracy theories, and a cornucopia of other far-right talking points.

THE OGS RECAP: CHARLIE KIRK, MEGYN KELLY, AND MORE

Our more tenured club members zeroed in on clips from three podcast episodes and a live event appearance to distill the Epstein-focused cracks in the MAGAsphere: Charlie Kirk & Megyn Kelly at Turning Point USA SAS 2025, Flagrant – “Why Trump is Covering for Epstein & How Diddy Got Off”, The Tim Dillon Show - “Wet Hot American Epstein”, Candace Owens - "Trump Gone Wild! Is Jeffrey Epstein Even Dead?". The throughline across all the content was conspiracy – sowing distrust in institutions has been the right’s name of the game.

INSIDE THE EPISODES

Charlie Kirk & Megyn Kelly at Turning Point USA SAS 2025

At Turning Point USA’s 2025 Student Action Summit, Kelly opened by differentiating the Epstein scandal from the “fake media scandals the left tries to create for Trump every other day,” as she explained that this one was of the right’s own making, and that it “wasn’t going well.” Kelly rails that Bondi should get out there and do a press conference long enough to bore people, because “that’s how you put a scandal to rest.” Kelly’s insistence on a press conference in which every last question, even by their harshest critics, is answered got us thinking. She should stick to that—and we should ensure that she does. Beyond Epstein, this methodology should be applied across the board. All elected officials should be forced to explain to their constituents the WHY behind decisions that affect everyday people, and they should be doing so in public-facing, easily digestible formats.

Flagrant – “Why Trump is Covering for Epstein & How Diddy Got Off”

On Flagrant, the hosts mulled over what they perceived to be the most benign and worst-case scenarios when it comes to Epstein. These ranged from Epstein having connections to intelligence communities in the U.S. and even Israel, to a “massive blackmail ring,” in which “they” have embedded themselves into all aspects of American culture, from universities to “intelligentsia.” They assessed that there is undeniably a cover-up, and the CIA is most likely involved, which means our tax dollars are as well.

The general theme here was largely oversimplification – just more extreme, red-meat MAGA arguments of mass government conspiracy. Throughout our UNASB journey, we've found that many of the most influential podcasts thrive on an aspirational connection between hosts and listeners. Everyone wants to feel like they're in with the cool kids — especially when those kids are a group of funny, charismatic guys casually hanging out and serving up juicy theories. It's an enticing, low-effort entry point into a world that feels both exclusive and accessible.

The Tim Dillon Show – “Wet Hot American Epstein”

When it came to Tim Dillon, we got a lot of assertive (and loud) commentary delivered in a laid-back, old-school setting with a talk radio vibe. Akin to many other right-leaning commentators, we got nuggets of facts and truth sprinkled amongst a lot of bluster, leaving you wondering what he actually said. Crystal clear, though, was the notion that we all know who’s on the list – the most powerful people, and you can’t trust anyone. One more interesting tidbit: per Dillon, “Trump actually isn’t the most powerful person in the world, and “young chicks aren’t his thing.”

Time and time again, UNASB members have seen the biggest transformations and impact in the nexus of politics and culture. Comedy is a force multiplier, and this is the world Dillon operates within, belting out random asides (calling Cuomo a “retard lasagna brain”). It seems that if you’re funny, you can say whatever you want, and this sense of humor translates to authenticity, which translates to trust. Plus, the right seems to take less issue with comedy or language that crosses a 'boundary. When comedians talk about politics, they float just above reality. There’s a connection to politics, but also a detachment.

Candace Owens – "Trump Gone Wild! Is Jeffrey Epstein Even Dead?"

As she told her husband, “the Epstein scandal is definitely terminal cancer to Trump’s MAGA movement.” “We don’t need to be conspiracy theorists,” she adds right after questioning the presence of a medic disappearing in what she claims is an eight-second lapse in the last photos of Epstein. Throw in a mysterious 4chan post announcing Epstein’s death, and we’re off to the races. Oh, and did you know that “Israel controls a lot of the posts that are on 4chan?” But, Owens ironically repeats, “we don’t need to be conspiracy theorists.”

High-level strategic framing is popular with the right wing. Speak authoritatively and conversationally, take that kernel of truth or common sense, twist it until it’s entirely warped, and blast off. Hit as many conspiracy theories as possible and do it in rapid fire. Performative rage bait gets clicks and views. Owens does this expertly and with a tone that would make cynicism blush.

She raises some valid questions. But just when she starts to sound reasonable, she veers off course—wondering aloud whether Epstein might still be alive. Candace ultimately concludes that Trump—or at the very least, the Trump-hating operatives who infiltrated his inner circle—believes his base is stupid. Maybe it’s her own sense of betrayal that’s pushing her to expose fissures in her support for the administration. After all, she’s not just a member of the base; she’s a leading voice within a conspiracy-fueled faction of it. As she walks us through a minute-by-minute account of Epstein’s death, she comes off as incredulous—maybe even flailing.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Messaging Strategy & Narrative:

Simple, gripping storylines resonate – “Rich people doing crazy things on an island” is easy to grasp and has universal appeal.
Scandal-driven content catches attention but often ignores victims — we should center them while holding the powerful accountable.
Rally people behind shared enemies – A single shared enemy can galvanize folks more than a whole system. Use individual stories to better tell the story of a broken system that can be fixed.
Dems need to stay on the Epstein story – both the left and right care, it's a cultural touchstone that many people are aware of (in a fractured media environment filled with misinformation, a shared sense of culture and reality is rare).

Tone & Tactics:

Use comedy + fast facts – they’re universal tools to reach broad audiences and disarm extremism.
Hyperbole makes content feel absurd – lets people detach from politics and engage through humor.
Cynical tone – leans into “can’t trust anyone” sentiment, which is widely relatable now. If Dems employ this tone, they should be more careful than the right has been.
Scapegoating and deflection – highlight how MAGA turns on its own (e.g., Pam Bondi).
Simplicity and repetition – use MAGA’s own words to provoke thoughts and discussion
Play their game (within reason) – we need messengers who are unapologetically blunt and don’t get frazzled

Audience Psychology & Behavior:

Rage bait works – anger and salaciousness drive clicks and engagement; use it strategically to draw people in, then redirect to substance.
People want to form their own opinions – so give them multiple plausible frames (“illusion of choice”).

Influencer & Ecosystem Strategy:

Creators have different incentives than Dems – less cautious, more compelling. Dems try to respect victims, but get left behind.
Multiple voices = strength – don’t wait for one perfect message or messenger, rather encourage MANY tactics, messages, and messengers.
Crowdsourcing narratives builds community and engagement — lean into groupthink/empowerment dynamics.
Use their own words – weaponize right-wing figures’ statements through reframing or irony

“How the Right Won the Media War — And What We Can Still Do About It” by Will Robinson
“Gen Alpha’s politics are starting to take form” by Rachel Janfaza
“Are Young Men Over Dating?” by the Young Men Research Initiative
“How The Right’s “Conservative Cosmo” Is Influencing Young Women” by Scott Schuler
“Democrats Clash on Senate Floor Over Policing Bills and How to Take On Trump” from the NYT

Thanks for reading! Want to get involved? Click here.

Subscribe now

CLUB RECAP: Brett Cooper, Steve Bannon & Megyn Kelly

Marilyn — Wed, 23 Jul 2025 17:00:48 GMT

Link to this week’s episodes:

Subscribe now

Hello and welcome to the inaugural newsletter of Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath (UNASB)—we’re glad you’re here! UNASB began meeting in January 2025 in the wake of Trump’s reelection to discuss important questions, i.e. WTF just happened?!?, why, and how did we miss this??? We are a coalition of diverse, left-leaning thinkers—many of us work in politics and media, but we’re also your local city council members, fitness instructors, stay-at-home-parents, retirees, artists, nurses, and so much more.

Every other week, we select a conservative-leaning podcast (from obvious political figures like Ben Shapiro to more ~sneaky folks like Jay Shetty), analyze its messaging and themes, and try to apply this knowledge to how we (the broader Democratic coalition) can do better. We resist the temptation to argue with the content, no matter how bananas it gets, and try to meet these podcasters and their listeners where they are. In this newsletter, we’ll summarize our chosen podcast and takeaways, as well as round up the various articles, social media content, and other podcasts our vociferous membership recommends you check out.

So, whether you’re curious about the so-called manosphere, the girly pop movement to Make America Healthy Again, the tech right, or just want some new content to hate-listen…we hope you’ll find this space instructive or, at the very least, cathartic. Unfortunately, this is not a sound bath.

This week, we crawled further down the rabbit hole with three spirited thinkers…

Thumbnail for The Brett Cooper Show’s 6/30 episode: A Pathetic End To Pride Month + The $40 Million Dollar Wedding | Episode 44

Who is Brett Cooper?

This 23-year-old MAGA darling is taking the right-wing media ecosystem by storm, with 1.2M followers on Instagram 1, one of the country’s fastest growing YouTube channels at 1.58M subscribers, and a new deal as a regular contributor to Fox News (Here’s a quick bio from The Cut). A top-billed speaker at the recent Turning Point USA Young Women’s Leadership Summit in Dallas (read more about that cursed event here), Cooper is one of the leading voices in a new conservative media landscape targeting Gen Z women.

Distinct from many of the previous pods UNASB-ers have traversed, The Brett Cooper Show sounds more like a pop culture podcast than a political one. She begins by regaling a personal tale of car troubles—with many references to her husband to ensure you don’t forget this media mogul is married and with child—then jumps into a diatribe on Pride Month, followed by a mixed bag review of the Bezos wedding (too expensive for Cooper’s taste but she was delighted that Lauren Sanchez’s dress was appropriately modest), a bit on her broad hatred of Gen Z, and finally a segment on Cooper’s anxiety that Zohran Mamdani may be planning to take over Trader Joe’s!

What’s the effect of this rapid-fire, pop culture-centric format that feels more like scrolling TikTok than a traditional political podcast? Well, like many elders that have come before her (see Ben Shapiro’s viral Wicked rant or Candace Owens’s coverage of the Justin Baldoni/Blake Lively battle), Cooper uses cultural commentary as a Trojan horse for broader ideological positioning. This is a strategy right-wing creators have latched onto and succeeded at—effectively acting as a tabloid rather than a political messenger—where the left’s serious, issue-based comms has failed.

Her tone is sarcastic, self-aware, and meme-literate. She’s willing to poke fun at her own side (“Trump and Elon breaking up…was like the gayest thing that happened throughout the entirety of Pride Month”). We’re not sure if she’s appealing to an imagined center-right audience or simply hedging to avoid sharing an actual opinion, but the intended vibe is clear: We’re just yapping with the girls here!

For more on Brett, NYT just published this profile:

Brett Cooper Is Spreading Conservatism, One Celebrity Drama at a Time

Biblical flooding & conservative nostalgia with Steve Bannon & Megyn Kelly

Thumbnail from 7/5 episode of Bannon’s War Room: Episode 4611: The Depravity of the Ruling Class with Megyn Kelly

On the other end of the spectrum, we dropped in on a familiar friend with Steve Bannon and his podcast/live “news” show Bannon’s War Room. Did you know this man is dropping multiple podcast episodes a day?!? I am loathe to admit it, but I have to commend this man’s creative output. I guess everyday is carpe diem after serving time in prison <3.

Bannon begins the episode by dropping in on a local press conference about the deadly Texas floods, complete with local correspondents, a quick check-in with Congressman Chip Roy, and a whole lot of prayer. Then, Megyn Kelly joins to give a bleak sermon of her own on the state of America, marked with cultural panic, class resentment, and a populist call-to-arms.

Framed around the 250th anniversary of the American Republic, Kelly launches into a sweeping condemnation of modern life in cities like New York and San Francisco, which are in absolute “cultural collapse.” She bemoans the chart-topping success of Cardi B’s “WAP”2 and longs for the sweet love songs of the 1950s. We miss you Phil Spector and Jerry Lee Lewis!

The conversation quickly pivots to education as the battlefield of choice for the right, with Kelly recounting stories from her children’s time in elite New York schools. The kids are writing papers on feminism in the 2nd grade (Megyn, incensed, is not a feminist), gender theory in 3rd, and anti-capitalist doctrine by college. Together, Bannon and Kelly argue that the pipeline of progressive education is creating a future class of voters who are hostile to the founding principles of the United States

In a sharp tonal shift, the pair decry billionaire decadence, specifically the Bezos-Sanchez wedding, as a symbol of elite moral decay. (Someone get Brett Cooper on the phone! I want to hear these three trade Bezos barbs!) The resistance duo almost reaches the logical endpoint of calling for the end of the billionaire class, before retreating to familiar territory: celebrities have run amok as evidenced by lewd behavior at the Met Gala and the foam from Bezos’s yacht party running into the ocean.

Despite the news conference leading things off, ultimately the episode is less of a news segment than a cultural grievance sermon designed to stoke resentment and fortify tribal lines. Both hosts argue that liberal run cities and institutions must be “allowed to fail” so voters can suffer the consequences and correct course. It’s a politics of punishment and purging, not reform. The message is clear: things may feel apocalyptic, but the forthcoming collapse is necessary for national rebirth, or as they see it, the symbol of rapture.

For more on Steve Bannon, we recommend:

Steve Bannon Is Out of Jail, and He Has a Plan for Trump’s Next Term This October 2024 profile, written by New Right expert James Pogue for Vanity Fair, is a great primer on understanding Bannon’s mindset.
Politics Is Downstream from Culture, Part 2: “Cultural Marxism,” or, from Hegel to Obama Bannon isn’t a political strategist, he’s a cultural strategist!

Takeaways

Use buzzy pop culture topics as a nonthreatening entry into political discourse.
- We were totally tickled by this Instagram reel on Love Island USA winner Amaya Papaya as a “cultural reset,” and
- this Call Her Daddy interview where Alex Cooper notes the significance of the first ever Hispanic couple winning the show, which is decided by a public vote: “For the world and especially right now, this was such an incredible moment in history. I think sometimes, obviously, people can look at Love Island and think it’s just a dating show. But to see you and Brian up on that stage and winning in the world that we’re in right now, it’s probably what a lot of people needed.” What a smart way to signal greater ideological points re: two first-gen immigrants on the show of the summer!
We can find common ground with figures like Brett Cooper, Steve Bannon, and Megyn Kelly by our shared distrust for the billionaire class. Everyone is down to roll their eyes at billionaire foam parties on megayachts!
Megyn and Brett—and others like Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlsen—use speaking cadence not unlike a religious sermon to connect effectively with listeners/viewers. How can we harness some of that energy on our side?
The Bannon episode opens with a press conference that gives it a sense of legitimacy (with statements from local officials), then shifts into opinion, making it hard to tell what’s fact and what’s commentary. By placing opinion next to official statements, it can lead the audience to believe the commentary is just as credible, under the guise of “reporting”.

What UNASB-ers are reading, watching & sharing this week

On the MAGA youth, Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, and more folks like Brett Cooper

Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse: MAGA: The Next Generation (The Daily Show)
What Do Mamdani and the MAGA Movement Have in Common? ‘Hot’ Supporters. (The New York Times)
The Teens Trying to Make MAHA Cool (CNN)
The Kurious Kase of Karoline Leavitt (Diabolical Lies)
The Womanosphere Claims It’s Winning Young Women—But Is It? (Diabolical Lies)
This TikTok series from a former Turning Point USA writer
Another one of the Christian right’s main influencers if you want to go down a rabbit hole: Allie Beth Stuckey (Instagram) and her interview with Ross Douthat

General comms talk

MAGA Meltdown over Epstein Files

Finally, an excellent documentary

on the rise of the Evangelical Far Right in Brazil, streaming on Netflix July 14.

Young Men Research Initiative

Trump is the establishment now

Young men aren’t pleased with the Epstein situation. A new CNN/SRSS poll shows that just 10 percent of men ages 35 or under are satisfied with the amount of information released on the “Epstein files,” a possible collection of documents containing evidence on the convicted sex trafficker’s victim and client list. Transparency regarding Epstein's dealing…

9 months ago · 4 likes · 1 comment · Young Men Research Initiative and Charlie Sabgir

The Message Box

How a Broken Media Ecosystem Enables Trump and the GOP

Last week, the GOP Congress passed the least popular piece of major legislation since the advent of modern polling nearly a century ago…

9 months ago · 264 likes · 46 comments · Dan Pfeiffer

The Message Box

How Dems Should (and Should Not)Talk About the Epstein Scandal

Donald Trump is taking fire from his closest allies over his failure to release the Epstein files; and Democrats sensed an opening. As I wrote on Monday…

9 months ago · 186 likes · 14 comments · Dan Pfeiffer

Public Notice

Trump betrays his conspiracy-addled base

9 months ago · 478 likes · 19 comments · Paul Waldman

Will Robinson's Newsletter

Outgunned, Outposted, and Out of Touch:

Democrats didn’t just lose control of the message in recent years - we lost the medium, the momentum, and the muscle memory for how to fight a long campaign in a shifting media war. In 2024, the Right didn’t win with better policies, stronger candidates, or more money. They won with something far more powerful: a decentralized, relentless, 24/7 communic…

10 months ago · 57 likes · 16 comments · Will Robinson

Our members note that unfortunately Brett Cooper’s instagram has a great aesthetic. It’s often apolitical with lots of cute pics of farm life in Nashville, outfit checks, travel, and a seemingly charmed life with her husband and new baby on the way.

Btw WAP turns 5 years old in August! Megyn Kelly still bumping it 5 years on…we love to see it.