BLOGMarch 08, 2018

Gawker takedown: Author chronicles Hulk Hogan’s epic smackdown that bankrupted liberal website

How much do you really know about one of the biggest media stories of all time?

Ryan Holiday, the author and strategist behind the marketing expose “Trust Me, I’m Lying,” is back with a book about the famous battle between billionaire Peter Thiel and the now-defunct website Gawker.

Thiel had it in for Gawker after the site revealed in 2007 that he was gay, but the investor was smart enough to bide his time until he could catch Gawker doing something illegal: publishing without permission parts of a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and his former best friend’s wife.

In his new book, “Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue,” Holiday gives an insider’s perspective on the famous Gawker takedown based on his time with both Thiel and former Gawker chief Nick Denton.

According to Holiday, Thiel’s chance meeting with a mysterious “Mr. A” was the turning point. “Mr. A” and attorney Charles Harder worked together to find any potential dirt on Gawker and jumped on the opportunity when the site published the Hogan footage.

Where is “Mr. A” now? Holiday didn’t say who he was or exactly what he’s doing now, but it’s a safe bet to imagine he’s set for life.

“I would imagine when you solve a problem for a billionaire like this, the world is sort of your oyster from that point forward,” Holiday said.

Want more? Listen to the full interview with Holiday in Hour 2 of today’s show here:

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Do the ends justify the means? Are there real white hats and black hats anymore? Can you actually be a white taking down a black hat?

If you've done them in nefarious ways, are you wearing a gray hat, or are you wearing a black hat?

There are so many things today that we would all like to see, you know, dishonest, bad media go away and collapse on its own weight. We might even cheer when something like gawker, which was a despicable website, when gawker went out of business and had to shut down, we might all cheer.

However, are we all comfortable with the idea that a billionaire can conspire and make that happen?

Even though, the end is good.

STU: Ryan Holiday is an author. He wrote a great book called Trust Me On Lying, which is a fantastic read, to go back and see how the news you see every day gets to you.

GLENN: Sausage.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: You'll find teeth and shoes in it.

STU: You have to read that. The new book is Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue. And it's -- it brings us through this entire story, and Ryan joins us now.

GLENN: So, Ryan, can you tell this story like only you can? Tell this story before we get into what we're supposed to learn from it.

RYAN: Well, it's an almost unbelievable story. In 2007, Gawker Media, a gossip website in New York City, has a Silicon Valley arm called Valley Wag, and they out the Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel as gay. He's at that point the founder of PayPal. He was an early investor in Facebook, but a relatively unknown person whose sexuality was known to his friends. But he was not publicly gay.

He's -- he's humiliated by this. He's frustrated by it. He's hurt. Gawker's headline, I believe, was Peter Thiel is Totally Gay, People. So imagine your most sensitive secret being made public in such a flippant way. And he finds this not to be illegal, but to be disgusting. And --

GLENN: Now, hang on just a second. Ryan, when this happens with gawker, is this -- because I find gawker despicable. They've done things to me and my family that are just despicable.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: But on this, people were saying, well, we should out people, because that's only going to make people more comfortable with -- you know, with gay people if they know you're around them all the time. So were they using the ends justify the means at that time to do something good, or are they just dirtbags?

RYAN: I think it's a little bit of both, right? I think they thought, why should he keep this secret? And I think they also thought, why should this be a jet? This isn't something to be ashamed of. But the truth is be with he didn't want it to be public. And I believe that's his prerogative.

GLENN: Yeah, it's his story to tell, not anybody else's.

RYAN: He sort of despairs of being able to do anything about it for five years. He just sort of sits on this. He's frustrated. He's hurt by it. But he can't do anything about it. And it's only in 2012, when Gawker makes another enemy, they run an illegally recorded sex tape of the professional wrestler, Hulk Hogan, that Thiel sees the opportunity that he's been looking for this whole time, that he had been looking for. He had hired a lawyer to spot opportunities like this.

He approaches Hulk Hogan, and he says, look, what they did to you is not only despicable, I think it's illegal both federally and in Florida, where you're a resident. I will fund this. Thiel approaches him through an intermediary. This is totally in secret.

I will fund this case as far as you're willing to take it. And he approaches a number of other people in similar cases. And then for the next four years, this case winds its way through the legal system. And he eventually wins 140 million-dollar bankruptcy-inducing verdict against Gawker in Florida, to the shock of all onlookers and legal strategists at the time. And he achieves that thing that he had set out to do in 2007, which was to both get his revenge and to prevent this -- this website that he believes to be evil, from doing what it did to people.

GLENN: So --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: -- I know Peter -- he is a very, generally quiet guy. You know, he's -- he's an odd duck.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: He's a really nice guy. Doesn't seem like a guy who is driven by vengeance. But does sound like a guy -- or feels like a guy who will take all the time necessary in the world. He is not in any hurry. He'll wait until it's right.

RYAN: Well, that's what's so brilliant about what he did. I think most of us, when something is done to us, we react. We respond. Right? A fight breaks out.

A conspiracy, to me, is more something that bruise, that develops. And that's what it was so brilliant about Peter. He didn't -- he said, look, what they did to me I don't think was right. And I'm angry about it. But it's never good to be driven by anger. And so, instead, he steps back. He never forgot what happened. But he looked for an opportunity, where he actually had legal -- legal ground to stand on, where he actually could have an impact. Where the public would be so universally repulsed by what these people did, that he would have a shot at making a difference. So I think both that patience and that ability to be strategic, is why he was able to solve a problem, if that's what you want to call it. That many other powerful people had looked at, and said basically, there's nothing you can do about this.

GLENN: But he didn't do -- did he become the thing that he despised?

I don't get the impression that he did. He -- he did this on the up-and-up. The only thing -- the reason why it's a conspiracy is, he didn't want to be out front. But now that it's known -- he doesn't mind. I mean, he's owning it now.

RYAN: Sure. Look, I think secrecy is a fundamental element of a conspiracy. And I respect that he was willing to see that the optics of a billionaire being publicly in front of this thing completely changes how the public would look at it. You know, he said to me, he got this advice from one of his friends. His friends said, Peter, you have to choose your enemies carefully because you become just like them. So that's really the danger of spending nine years scheming to destroy or ruin someone or something, is that you study them so much, they consume so much of your mental bandwidth, that you can kind of become like them.

I don't think that he became anything like Gawker. But, for instance, there's a seminal moment in jury selection, where they notice that overweight female jurors are the most sympathetic to their case. Now, that's not disgusting. But there is an element of unpleasantness in selecting a juror to then exploit their most vulnerable body issue to win a case --

GLENN: But don't you think -- that's done in the court system every day of the week.

RYAN: Agreed. My point is, I think we -- we tend to be idealists about change.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

RYAN: We think that we can make change without getting our hands dirty or without dealing with some of this unpleasantness.

GLENN: Yes.

RYAN: And so there's compromises of pursuing something of this magnitude. And I think Peter was so committed to what he was doing, that he felt that that end did justify -- that means did justify the end.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So Ryan has spent a lot of time with Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel -- this is not an anti-Peter Thiel book. Peter worked side by side. He had unprecedented access to Peter. And while Peter didn't -- I don't think, Ryan, unless there's another conspiracy theory. He didn't fund this book. He just gave access. More with Ryan Holiday.

The book is Conspiracy. And there's some tough questions that we have to ask ourselves. More in a minute.

GLENN: We're with Ryan Holiday, he's the author of a book called Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue. It's a very tough question that we have to tackle, but I want to get a couple more facts out of the way here before we do with Ryan.

STU: Ryan, a couple of things that we picked up from the book, one thing that Peter had conversations about his strategy, trying to get Gawker to go away.

RYAN: Uh-huh.

STU: They discussed at least seemingly -- he comes off a little flippantly, but at least considered doing things actually illegal when it comes to the approach.

GLENN: Yeah. What was the -- what was the example, Stu?

STU: Well, I'm sure -- I'm sure Ryan can walk us through the examples. I don't have them in front of me.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: Go ahead, Ryan.

RYAN: Sure. It struck me as a little bit of a tempest in a teapot by the media coverage. Because it's like getting in trouble for thinking about speeding and then not speeding.

GLENN: Yeah.

RYAN: But, you know, if you think about Thiel's position, he finds Gawker to be this great evil. He's trying to do something about it. But as a billionaire, he has essentially limitless resources. He's also the majority owner of one of the most powerful in intelligence and defense companies on the planet. So he has these immense resources.

And so it's a question then of, which of them is he going to use and what limitations is he going to impose on himself?

So theoretically, could he hire private detectives to follow Gawker writers and attempt to find dirt on them, that would be embarrassing? Could he start a rival website that would focus, but nothing on their personal lives? Could he bribe employees to leak information to him? Could he -- could he lobby politicians to go after them?

Like there's many things that he could do. But what he decides, actually, early on, after sort of laying all these options on the table, is that he -- that he wants only to do what's legal and ethical, because he's -- he's both, I think an ethical and moral person. But also, because at some point, your involvement is made public. At some point, you win.

And then the public looks at what you did, and they judge you for this. Right?

And so his belief was that, if they accomplished this thing they were trying to accomplish with unethical or illegal means, the victory would stand. And it would also be, as we were talking about earlier, it would be pyrrhic, in that it would come at a great cost to himself because he would have had to become the thing that he was trying to change in the first place.

GLENN: I have to tell you, this is kind of being spun as an anti-Peter Thiel book, and just that alone speaks volumes. I don't know how many billionaires there are that would have the self-control that he had, to say, no, I want to do it -- I want to do it the right way.

Can you tell me anything -- because you have an exclusive in this about a guy named Mr. A. I know you're not going to tell me who. But what is Mr. A's role?

RYAN: Well, that's -- it's one of the weirdest twits of this story, this incredibly well-covered story.

I think people thought, I guess myself included, felt like Peter Thiel was involved on a day-to-day basis. And, in fact, he sort of follows the start-up model, which is, in 2011, he has -- he has dinner with this promising young college graduate, who has told Peter he has an idea. They sit down to dinner.

And this kid says, Peter, I think I can solve your Gawker problem. I think that buried in their archive of posts are illegal acts or acts that make them vulnerable to -- to civil judgments. And I think -- he says, if you give me $10 million and three to five years of time, I think I can make something happen here. And basically, on the spot, Peter invests in this kid. And this kid is Peter's go-between, his operative who hires the attorneys, who vets the cases, who makes the decisions day-to-day. And Peter is -- is -- and the way that Peter puts $500,000 in Mark Zuckerberg's hands and he goes and makes Facebook, Mr. A goes and makes this conspiracy a reality.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So what do you think Mr. A is going to be doing now?

RYAN: Well, I would imagine when you solve a problem for a billionaire like this, your world is sort of your oyster from that point forward. I think he's got basically limitless options now. And has one patron who is probably willing to back him on any project under any condition.

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: Wow. What was Peter's motivation in cooperating with you, Ryan, on this book?

RYAN: Well, as I'm sure you guys have seen, in the coverage just talking to me. This is a story that has been intensely covered, but with such bias and such sort of tribal instincts on behalf of the media. Because the media sees what happens to Gawker. And they think, oh, that could happen to us. Let's circle the wagon. So there's been this incredible amount of judgment about what's happened.

And I think that's greatly impacted the coverage, right? To such a degree, that Peter has become, in many people's eyes, this sort of James Bond villain. And that's really not what he is, when you read him and you see what he did and why he did it. So I think -- I had written critically about Gawker many times. You know, myself. My emails were once hacked and leaked to Gawker. So I know what that feeling is like. So I was willing to at least be fair. You know, I told Peter, look, you're not going to get to see the book before it's printed. You're not going to have any input on it. I'm going to play it down the middle, but I think he at least believed that I would play it down the middle, rather than holding him up as the villain, if that wasn't true.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Ryan, there's -- if -- I'm just trying to think this through. If a billionaire -- let's say George Soros, who is not a friend of mine. If he decided to go after me and I was doing something -- and TheBlaze was doing something that was blatantly illegal. And I don't mean death by a million paper cuts, what a billionaire could do.

RYAN: Sure.

GLENN: I don't think I would have sympathy for Peter, if he had just been paper cut after paper cut, technicality after technicality, just keep him in court and bleed them dry.

RYAN: Right.

GLENN: I don't think this is a problem for the First Amendment, if they're going after things that are really, truly illegal and they're big.

And I'd like to get your response on that when we come back. What does this mean for the First Amendment? That a billionaire can mark somebody and then take them out? Is that good for the republic? When we come back.

GLENN: I am -- I'm currently on a -- on a couple-week rant of, we've got to do something, and how that always leads to bad things. You just don't make good decisions when you're angry, upset, emotionally. We've got to do something usually also means, I'll violate my principles because I want this pain to stop.

So what are our principles? I -- I don't -- I didn't like Gawker. Gawker did some things that were dangerous for my family. I thought they were despicable people. And I did wish them to go out of business. But I wouldn't have done anything to get them to go out of business. And I like the way Peter Thiel did this. He waited to see, is there something that they have done that breaks the law? When they had Hulk Hogan, that was an illegally recorded tape. And for what? What was the purpose of exposing that?

So Peter took them to court on that. The problem is, he's a billionaire, has unlimited resources. And are we setting a precedent that somebody who has an axe to grind can put another company out of business? One man can put a media company out of business if they want to?

Are we -- did anybody learn that lesson in a negative way? Ryan is with us.

Ryan Holiday is the author of the book Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.

What have you come to, Ryan, on that?

RYAN: Well, that is the big question. And it is potentially scary to think a billionaire could shut a media outlet down? And then when you step back, you know, your point about not reacting emotionally, well, did Peter actually do anything new that doesn't happen every day, anyway, right? The ACLU. The Sierra club. The NRA. They back cases all the time that they think move their ideology forward or stands up for one of their constituents. And so the idea of a wealthy person backing a lawsuit, not out of financial gain, but out of ideological alignment is actually not remotely new. And if you were to ban it, society would undoubtedly become a worse place, right?

Why shouldn't your rich uncle be able to support you against a person who ran into you, with their truck, right? You want that.

GLENN: So there's the legal question, which I think he did everything right. And then there's the ethical question, which I think he did everything right.

But you have to ask that ethical question too. And would you have felt different if he would have taken Gawker on, with -- with almost frivolous lawsuits and just done death by 1,000 paper cuts? Do you think it would have been a different story for you?

RYAN: Absolutely. Because there you're not attempting to win. You're not attempting to have your argument validated. You're attempting to destroy someone for something they may not have done something wrong.

So Peter's decision, for instance, not even an attack on First Amendment grounds because he believes that's sacred. But to look instead at the individual's right to privacy, right? Is there a newsworthiness in this sex tape, or is there a copyright claim here? He specifically did not sue them on say frivolous, libel, or defamation grounds because he was worried about the precedent that it might set. And he didn't believe that there was anything wrong there.

So his distinction is really, really important. And I think, you know, a potential hypothetical would be, what if a liberal had backed Shirley Sherrod in her lawsuit against Breitbart, when they ran that deliberately edited, manipulative tape of her in I believe it was 2011.

GLENN: Yes.

RYAN: And I don't think many of the people who are deeply upset about what happened to Gawker, I don't think they would be upset if Breitbart had gone out of business in 2012. I think they would be cheering at the exact same way.

STU: It's very interesting. Yes, that's absolutely true. I wanted to get your take quickly on -- I can't remember the guy's name who actually wrote the story.

But he -- he's become somewhat of a cause celeb on the left of a guy -- because he's not the guy -- he's not Nick Denton who ran Gawker. But the guy who actually just did the post.

He's a lowly --

Yes. Yes. Just -- you know, a writer. And he's working for Gawker. Not making a ton of money. And he was involved in this lawsuit. And he has been presented as this guy who got in the middle of this thing. And he was helpless in this situation. And now he has no chance of making any money. He owes an ungodly amount of money for this lawsuit and can't do anything about it. He wasn't wealthy. He didn't own Gawker. Do you have any perspective on that and how that went down?

RYAN: Yeah. So in a way, he's just doing his job. Gawker publishes these stories all the time. It's so unremarkable when you get to the Hulk Hogan tape, that Nick Denton, the CEO isn't even notified, right? The case that bankrupts the company, the CEO doesn't know about it until after it is published. Because that's how run-of-the-mill it actually was.

So, yes, it was unfortunate that this individual, this writer doing his job, takes the full brunt of it in the public eye. You know, during the trial. And then is held liable -- the jury says -- holds him personally liable for about $100,000 of this 140 million-dollar judgment. But what people forget is that months after the verdict, Peter and Hulk Hogan settle with Gawker that releases both Denton and Daulerio from these individual claims. And they're able to walk free.

You know, they were not necessarily ruined by it. And Peter said, look, my goal was to destroy Gawker, not to ruin these people personally. But individuals are held accountable for their actions.

GLENN: Yeah.

RYAN: And that's life.

GLENN: I mean, we all have choices, no matter if everybody else is doing it. We still have a choice.

You know, I'm so intrigued by Peter. I think he is a real force for good. And I think he's a deep and thoughtful man, that doesn't make everything that he -- everything that he does right or good. But he really seems to think about things.

RYAN: Yes.

GLENN: And I heard him say once, it's not that I think I'm right, I'm not even sure if I'm right, I just don't think other people are even thinking about these things. What does that tell you about him?

RYAN: He would say that even about this case. That it's often not that he was right and other people were wrong. It's that Gawker wasn't even -- Gawker just assumed that this Hulk Hogan case would get settled. They weren't even taking it seriously. And so Peter is a person who has theories about the world. And he's willing to put some skin in the game. Right? He's willing to throw some weight behind them and see what happens. And I think -- to me, the lesson of what happened, and what I tried to write about in the book, is that, you can fundamentally disagree with what Peter did, and you can think that it's dangerous and alarming that Gawker doesn't exist anymore. But there is something to study, a lesson to learn, about how this guy did it. And why he did it.

And how he was able to effectuate the change that he needed to happen, outside of writing op-eds or putting out a petition. You know, he -- he made real change in the real world, where other people said, there was nothing you could do about it. And to me, that's a lesson that -- and in some ways, that's an inspiring things right now, in this society, where we're stuck, you know, on both sides of the aisle. I think we just feel like change can't happen. And here, a guy made something happen.

GLENN: Yeah. When -- I saw that in the book that -- that phrase.

I -- I thought to myself, that is something that the world is not even rewarding now. It doesn't reward you to think. It doesn't reward you to think outside of the box and to think differently. And it doesn't reward you to say, I'm not sure if I'm right. I just want us to think about that. And that's really what we're missing.

RYAN: And the irony is that in some ways, Gawker was part of that problem, right? I think one of Thiel's objections to them is not just the despicable things that they did and the violations of privacy, but as the site that just sort of made fun of everyone for every mistake, every failure, every personal idiosyncrasy.

They were dis-incentivizing people from thinking outside the box, from being weird. And weirdness is where innovation comes from and creativity. And we should want people to take risks and turn out to be wrong. What we don't want to do is mercilessly mock them, to the point where nobody tries anything because they don't want to end up on the front page of Gawker.com or any website.

GLENN: Ryan Holiday, thank you very much.

RYAN: Thanks for having me.

(music)

STU: I think we sold you on that story.

GLENN: Good story.

STU: Ryan tells it well.

GLENN: Good book.

STU: And there's a lot in here that's not previously been reported on.

Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue by Ryan Holiday. Also, we should have Ryan back on for Trust Me On Lying.

GLENN: For Trust Me. Yeah. He is a guy who has had firsthand experience, really, with fake news. I mean, it was really kind of his job as a PR person.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he knows how it works. And it's really fascinating.

STU: Yeah. Quickly on it, the concept in that book was that he -- you know those weird stories that bubble up to the national media. And you're like, how did we even hear about that?

It was his job to try to get them elevated from -- from a blog to a local media, to regional media, to national media, to try to get attention for clients and all sorts of stuff. So he was in the media manipulation business for a long time.

GLENN: And, you know what, it goes to -- remember the first thing that I said when we went to CNN and I said, I'm really uncomfortable with this. The ingesting of news.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Because if you make one mistake, that is your basis forever.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And it's interesting. Because what he did was, it was on a blog. And then he would call the local news and say, did you see this? Did you see this blog?

STU: Did you see this blog?

GLENN: And they would use that as a credible source. And then he'd go to the regional news and said, did you see this in the newspaper? And it got more incredible as it went on.

STU: Yeah.

RADIO

The ONE “forever war” Glenn Beck supports

This Fourth of July, Glenn Beck reveals the only “forever war” he supports. It’s the war Americans have been fighting since our nation’s founding, and we must continue the fight…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Two hundred forty-nine years ago, I think it is tomorrow. Right? Is tomorrow the second, or is it the first?

What day is it today?

So it was 200 -- 249 years ago, tomorrow, that somebody sat alone, in a -- in a one-room hotel room.

And scratched out the words, when in the course of human events. Those are the first six words of a document that is so dangerous!

Still today, so revolutionary.

It was whispered in those candle lit rooms by men who knew. Knew. That if I signed this document, that's a death warrant.

I'm dead!

I'm dead.

But in the course of human events, shh.

Jefferson wrote them!

33 years old. Adams would later say, you do well to revere Jefferson. But he didn't write alone. Basically, I was there too.

And so was Ben Franklin. The ideas were forged in the minds of men like Franklin, who is old enough to know better. And Adams, who was stubborn enough, not to care. And they weren't perfect men. But I love this about the left. They try to make you think.

That you think are perfect. I don't think they were perfect! I mean, Ben Franklin used to walk around naked in his house a lot. That shows, I mean, for as smart as that guy was. It shows, maybe he had a lack of mirrors. But they weren't perfect!

They owned slaves. They argued. They compromised.

How does that make them different than us?
I mean, we should be able to relate to them!

What is it that we tolerate right now?
What is it that we compromise on?

What is it -- what are our failures that future generations are going to go, these people just didn't get it? Perhaps what we should notice is that they, unlike most of us. They were willing to gamble their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

For something that had never, ever been done before. Something entirely new!

The idea that rights don't come from a government, or from a king, or from a parliament.

They don't come from the majority voting. Everyone has certain rights.

You know, for all these people who are, you know -- going in Macy's, and burning down towns. And then stealing clothing. And they're like, because I've been oppressed!

And you can't -- I've got rights, you know.
Yeah. Yeah.

You know who the first people were, to articulate those rights?

You know the only country that actually has stood for those rights?

And we're imperfect!

That idea came from the Founders, that you say you hate.

But the actual rights come from God, which you dismiss!

Think of this. Just ponder this for a second.

That all men are created equal! That their rights are given to them, by a creator.

It's not a political assertion. It's a genius. That's eternal truth!

That's theological dynamite, lobbed straight in to the thrones of Europe.

All over the world, it's still dynamite.

They knew what they were doing.

And I don't mean like, they knew what they were doing.

They had it. No. They knew that the British crown had the largest military force in the world. And these guys, they were farmers. They were printers. They were lawyers. They were a ragtag collection of intellectual and idealists, facing down an empire, where they said, the sun never set on the British empire. Meaning, the colonialism was everywhere!

You could not escape England. And yet, they declared it. We're leaving, without apology!

And they said that when a government becomes destructive of the ends of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, it's not only the right of the people, it's their duty to throw it off!

Wow. And you know what is amazing? That's not rebellion.

That's -- that's not revolution. That's -- that's responsibility.

That -- that kind of language today, that would have you flagged, shadow banned. Labeled an extremist. In most countries, disappeared!

But that is the foundation of what we call America. The American experiment. And it's that. The American experiment.

And it's just that, an experiment. We didn't know if we could get it right. And we haven't gotten it right. But isn't it worth experimenting?

Isn't it worth trying to get that concept right?

When you fail on that concept, you're like, eh. That's a stupid idea.

That's not a stupid idea. That's the greatest idea of all time.

Why are so many people willing to just quit?

The experiment is self-rule. It's not perfect.

Never has been. Slavery. Jim Crow. Internment camps. Assassinations.

My God! Forgive us, for what we have done.

But at the same time, what nation has done more to correct its own errors?

What people have shed more blood, not for conquest, but for freedom.

Twice in the last century, we crossed oceans. Not to claim territory. But to liberate that territory!

Our sons and daughters fought and bled on foreign soil to push the darkness back, to fight against Naziism and fascism and Communism. And here we are. Here we are today.

After 249 years tomorrow of that experiment, standing at the lip of the very abyss, those men feared.

A godless chaos, rising in the east and a cold atheistic utopia, clawing at the foundations of the Western world. Islamism and Communism, two ideologies that have killed tens of millions of people. Now dressed all in new robes, selling old lies.

And we can't even teach a child where their rights come from. We have replaced Jefferson and Adams with TikTok influencers and bureaucratic groupthink.

We're raising generations to not even know the truth about their own identity.

But to question their identity. And they could be, oh, you're a funny, funny colored unicorn today. What do you want to be tomorrow?

We don't teach them anything about truth, or their inheritance, most importantly. Their inheritance. What good are hot dogs and fireworks, if the soul of the nation is up for auction? What is the meaning in Fourth of July, if we have forgotten the why? If we don't even call it Independence Day anymore. Most people don't even know who we fought against for independence.

They think we fought for its independence! Most people think we fought the South!

And yet, we'll light the sparklers, or blow our fingers off, because we're just that stupid.

This Independence Day weekend, would you do me and yourself and your country a favor, and read the words out loud. Speak the words out loud.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with one another.

And to assume among the powers of earth, the separate, but equal station, to which the laws of nature.

And nature's God entitle them.

A decent respect to the opinions of mankind, requires that they should declare the causes, which impair them to the separation.

What are they saying?

Look, we want to be decent people.

We want to be decent people.

And we have to separate them.

But we believe it's only right that we tell you why we have to separate. And it's not because of all the bad things you've done. We'll get to those later. It's because we're different. And you don't understand. You have been telling us all of these things, we no longer believe in. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and they're endowed by their creator with certain inalienable. Unchangeable rights.

And just among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, government are his instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

My gosh. Read those words. And let your children hear what thinking and courage sounds like.

That to secure these rights, I'm telling you, the king, who thinks that your government was given to you, by God.

And you are the ruler.

And you will tell everybody what to think, what to do. What to buy. What to sell. What to tax. What not to tax. Who gets land. Who doesn't get land.

No, no, no. Government are his instituted among men, deriving their powers, their just powers, from the people. And that government is only there, established by those men to protect the rights that God has given each of those men.

Let them feel the chill, that runs down the spine, when Jefferson writes, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government, or from the governed. Let them hear the words, of -- of responsibility. What responsibility sounds like, with courage and freedom. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

And to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their a lot of and happiness.

In other words, you have the right, you have the responsibility to stop tyrants. And if the government has gone bad, to throw that government off.

But reconstitute a government, that will do a better job at protecting those rights. Not to form a communist government.

Not to do anything else. But you want a new government?

Fine! Let's find the way to make men more free. This is not a metaphor. This is a declaration of war on tyranny in all of its forms.

I mean, I said, yesterday, freedom isn't free.

It was paid for by somebody's blood. But you have to remember, they paid for their freedom, not for our freedom, necessarily.

We -- there comes a time, we have to pay for our freedom. And God forbid, that it comes down to blood.

But at least shake off the apathy. We -- we must renew this promise of this experiment of America.

We need to fight for it as well. An out-of-control government that seeks to rope us into forever wars, over and over again. We're all against forever wars. I'm against it.

I hate them.

But there is one forever war, that is required in a free society. A different kind of forever war.

A war against ourselves, a war against human nature in each of us. Because of human nature, we get fat. We get lazy.

We get tolerant of abuses. Let your children hear you speak these words. And when you speak them, ponder them yourself.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes.

And accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer while the evils are sufferable than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms in which they're accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a sign to reduce them under absolute despotism.

It's their right. It's their duty. To throw off such government. And provide new guards for such future security.

In one paragraph, we make the point twice. And they tell us, look, we've studied people.

We know you're going to get fat and lazy and apathetic. And you won't want to do stuff for transient causes. Because this is really not good.

But when push comes to shove. And everything is moving towards absolute despotism. Absolute tyranny. Then you must stand up.

I ask you to ponder this. This particular part, when a long train of abuses and usurpations. Prudence will indeed dictate that governments long established should not be exchanged for light and transient causes.

And accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind is more disposed to suffer while the evils suffer, than to right themselves.

Aren't we exactly the same people, that their experience was talking about?

Aren't we the people that are more disposed to suffer, than to right ourselves? Because we're too comfortable. Or we're too afraid, just to stand up and simply say no to lies.

No!

There is a difference between men and women.

No! Communism is to be feared. It's killed over 100 million people, in the last 100 years.

No!

Muslims aren't bad. Islamism is!

It's evil. No!

You can peacefully protest, any time, any place. And I will fight to the death for your right to do that.

But when you start burn cities down to the ground, no!

We're just a few days away. And we have marked our 249th birthday. Maybe. Just maybe, this year, can we stop asking what America was, and start deciding what America will be?

Where it just slips quietly into history. In the dark of apathy and ignorance.

Because the only thing more dangerous than tyranny is the people who have forgotten what it took to break its chains.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

We need REAL jobs in America — Trump should do THIS now!

It is clear we need to create more productive, high-paying jobs for American citizens. But that doesn't mean bringing back the same exact jobs of the past in massive numbers. It means creating and supporting jobs of the present and future that will better the lives of Americans. Glenn Beck and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts break down exactly what this entails and how President Trump can make it a reality.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts HERE

RADIO

The most INCREDIBLE World War II story you’ve NEVER HEARD

One of the biggest American World War II cemeteries in Europe is in a small town in the Netherlands, where thousands of Dutch people continue the tradition to this day of “adopting” a fallen US soldier and checking in on his family. “The Monuments Man” author Robert Edsel joins Glenn Beck to tell this incredible story, which he documents in his new book, “Remember Us.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Robert, welcome back to the program. How are you, sir?

ROBERT: Great to talk to you!

GLENN: It's great to talk to you.

Can you remind me? You were on with us, after Monuments Men. And you talked about this great service that is still going on, where people that -- they were still looking for paintings and pieces of art, that had been taken by the Nazis.

And if I remember right, didn't somebody in our -- our own audience reach out to you, and say, I think we found one of those paintings?

ROBERT: Yes, sir. Absolutely.

The Glenn Beck audience. And Glenn Beck, you yourself deserve a lot of credit.

Because I hadn't walked out of your studio last time. You know, in Dallas at Las Colinas.

Headed back to our office at Monuments Men and Women Foundation office, before someone in my office contacted me and said, we've already had a lead, as a result of your interview with Glenn. And it turned out someone whose aunt had been given two paintings during World War II.

She had worked for the government overseeing Germany, and these two paintings were missing.

We were able to identify who the rightful owner was, and get them back.

So it's a great thing that you performed. And, you know, it's a magnificent conclusion, though obviously a very difficult part of history.

GLENN: What was it like to give that back to the family?

ROBERT: It was a deeply moving experience. We -- the foundation found and returned more than 30 works of art, from paintings to documents, ancient books. Tapestries, to museums. Individual collectors, and so on.

And, you know, when we see, oftentimes, the people just stand there, and they cry.

They don't even know what to say. Because they may have worked 50 or 60 years, trying to find some work of art that's been missing. And they haven't had leads. And to -- to see us standing there, with something that belongs to them.

Not asking for anything in return. Don't charge anybody for doing it. Because we feel like everybody who went through World War II already paid enough.

Words -- words just fail. It's just pure gratitude.

GLENN: I can't wait for you to tell this new story.

Tell me the story of the care takers. The care takers of --

ROBERT: Well, it's a story that found me, just as Monuments did.

I have written about -- in the Monuments Men, I told the story of two Monuments Officers who were killed in combat, one British soldier and one American, Walter Huchthausen. And Huchthausen was killed. He once did a last casualty at war. He was killed in the last month of World War II, and is buried in the American benevolence, American cemetery, in Margraten in the Netherlands. I knew that story, and I had made mention of a young girl who was harbored in September '45, asking for the address of his mother, wanting to write her and tell her, that she walked 5 miles, several times a week, from her house to the American military cemetery. It was called then. To put flowers on his grave. Because her family knew them. And they were grief-stricken to know that they were killed.

And I knew that story too. I mentioned that. And then in 2015, the nephew of Huchthausen wrote me and included a photograph of this elderly lady with this crown of white hair. And he said, here's a photo with Frida, and I couldn't place who this was.

I had no idea who it was. And I realized, my God, this is that 19-year-old girl that is still alive. So I flew to England. She married a British soldier after the war. And I went to meet with her. She started showing me photographs of when the American -- Americans liberated her area of the Netherlands.

And all these American soldiers that they knew.

And she said, you know about the American military cemetery.

She said, have you been there?

And I said yes. And she said, so you know about the great adoption program?

And I said, what? She said, the great adoption program.

I said, I have no idea what you're talking about. So I started doing some research on this. And learned, at the end of World War II, our largest World War II cemetery in Europe, was not Normandy. It was the Netherlands American cemetery, where 17,800 boys and a few women buried at this cemetery by May 1946.

And by that time, every single grave had a Dutch person, a local person, who volunteered to be an adaptor of that brave.

Go out there on the first death date of the soldier, Veterans Day, Memorial Day.

And if they had the contact information for the next of kin, send them a photograph of the grave.
And a letter.

Because they realized, it was okay to adopt the bodies of dead boys.

But where the real need was, was to reach across the ocean, into the American homes and try to assuage the grief of the families.

And they knew some of these boys. And I found it the most heartwarming, uplifting, and certainly unique conclusion to a World War II story that I think has been written.

GLENN: So are they still some of them still doing this?

ROBERT: Not some. In fact, there were about -- in 1940, 748.

American families were given the choice to have their loved ones sent home, or to be left overseas in a military cemetery.

The Army had no idea, how many -- how many families would want their boys sent home, and as a consequence, they couldn't tell how many cemeteries they would need.

We thought almost everybody would want to have the families sent home. But it turned out not to be the case. So about 61 percent came home. About 39 percent stayed in Europe, which was about the numbers from World War I.

Although, the numbers in this area, in the Netherlands were higher.

The -- the graves that are there now.

There are 10,000 boys there. And four women.

8300 graves. 1700 names on the walls of the missing.

Every one of them has an adaptor for 80 years.

All those graves have been adopted, without interruption.

There's a waiting list of almost a thousand people in the Netherlands, to become a doctor. This is a -- not just a --

GLENN: This is --

JASON: A privilege. Because they take their kids out to the cemetery. They turn the cemetery into a classroom. And you go out there. And, yes, there's a somber element. They're instilling in their kids, you're able to think, and say what you want to. Because of the freedom that was given to you, by this American girl or boy. And we don't do that in our country anymore.

GLENN: So this is one of the most incredible stories that I've -- I've ever heard.

And I'm shocked that the world doesn't know this!

Is -- have you -- is there anything like this, anywhere else in the world?

JASON: No. We couldn't even find a comp of any nature.

There are -- that is not to say, the people in Normandy area, don't care about Normandy and other cemeteries. They do, of course. As do the Belgians in other cemeteries.

But there's no place that created an organic great adoption program, during the war, in January 1945!

These people in this area of the Netherlands were so grateful, having been neutral in World War I.

And having not lost their freedom for 100 years!

And they didn't like it!

And when the Americans liberated them in September 44. I'll never forget this woman Freda. This elderly woman I met, looked at me, the first time I interviewed her. I knew her for eight years. The last eight years of her life.

I delivered a eulogy two summers ago. She looked at me, there were the eyes of the 19-year-old. And she said, when I saw that first tank over the hill and I realized, we were saved.

I looked at my dad, and I said, Papi, these American boys come all the way across the ocean to say this. And there were tears in her eyes.

Because they didn't -- they couldn't imagine how we could have moved that equipment across -- across the ocean.

And why we would have cared so much.

So there isn't anything like it.

But January 45, these people in this little town of Margraten.

A mile from the cemetery, organized a meeting of the town leaders. The town who got 1200 people.

And they were trying to find an answer to the question: How do you thank your liberators, when they're no longer alive to thank? And they came up with this idea of this great adoption program, and it's a story that I tell, following the lives of about 12 different American combat soldiers.

Bomber recipients.

Tankers.

Because we don't know that story.

We don't what knows to an American story, when they're killed on the field of battle.

Because it's depressing.

We move on to the next scene in a movie.

Well, I want people to know, you started your program with freedom is not free.

It's ugly.

Let's talk about that. Let's talk about what the cost is.

Let's talk about the stripping line that the body goes through, and the removal of dog tags, one being put in the mouth, if there's still a head. And the other being nailed to the cross, because they don't have time to stencil the names on yet.

Let's talk about that, and let people know, it's not just a Marvel movie. Or a gang war.

This is real. This is painful. And, of course, at the end of the war, when we Americans declare victory, and move on with our lives, there's millions of family members in the United States, whose lives will never be the same.

So it is -- it's still happening today. It's still happening today.

GLENN: The name -- the name of the book is Remember Us.

And take us -- I mean, because that's really kind of the -- the -- the beauty of it.

Take us through the rest of the book, just briefly.

It starts with what?

ROBERT: Well, I follow -- I began what a nice life was in the Netherlands. Until May 10, 1940.

And the Netherlands does not get much attention from World War II, and yet everybody has heard of Battle of the Bulge. And Battle -- those are all within 50 miles of what we're talking about.

They happened around there. Of course, World War II, in western Europe, begins right here in this area. Because the German tanks roll across the border.

So I cover the life of these 12 different Americans. I interviewed all their family members. Some make it through the war. Some don't.

You read the book, you realize who makes it, who doesn't. But their lives converge around this area of the Netherlands. And when post-world War II stories end, with the war being over, remember us kicks into a transcendent moment when the Dutch come up with this idea of this great adoption program. The Americans refuse to provide the names and addresses of the next of kin.

So they're foiled with trying to achieve their ultimate objective. Which is to try to contact all the American families.

And frustrated, there was -- one of the key figures of the book.

A woman who is the mother of 12 children.

Who takes it upon herself. She's a woman of action.

She writes president Truman. And pleads for him to get involved.

When that doesn't work. She gets on the first airplane, she's ever flown on. She leaves her kids behind.

She flies to New York. Lands in LaGuardia Field.

She goes to Washington, and meets the members of Congress. Including a young guy from Texas, named Lyndon Johnson.

Who says, young lady, you need to go to Texas. Because there are so many military bases there.

She flies to our hometown. And lands in Lovefield.

In June of 1946. And is met by two family members. And for five weeks, she lives with American families, that lost somebody during a war.

And to each of them she says, leave your boys with us. When the election comes.

We will watch over them, like our own forever.

And they have done that. Now, today, these 10,000 Dutch doctors only have contact information for 20 percent of the American families.

They couldn't ever get the others.

GLENN: You're kidding me. Where is the list? Do you have a list?

ROBERT: Yeah. The Monuments Men and Women Foundation entered into a joint venture with the Dutch Foundation for Adopting Graves.

Not charging anybody for this. And we have created a website called foreverpromise.org.

And on that website is a list of all 10,000 men and women, more women that are buried at the cemetery, or whose names are on the walls missing.

And it's a searchable database. We're asking people to go and see. Do you have someone you know, or a relative, who is buried there.

And if so, we have a short questionnaire. What's your relationship? Are you aware of this great adoption program? Are you in contact with your adopter? Would you like to be? Would you allow us to share your contact information?

I connected a lady from Richmond, Texas. Saturday night. To her -- to this young Tammy, that's the adopter of her brother.

She's 93 years old.

She was in tears. At the thought when she leaves this world, there will be someone there to watch over her brother.

And that's what we're all about is this connecting.

GLENN: Rob, I have to tell you.

You've really done something with your life. I mean, I know you don't need me to say it.
But what a great job you have. And what a great service you have done for so many years.

Thank you so much.

Please, look this up.

The forever promise project.

You can find it at foreverpromise.org. Foreverpromise.org. Robert Edsel is the author's name. The book is Remember Us. It's a perfect read for this week.

Glenn's Show Prep

Gawker takedown: Author chronicles Hulk Hogan’s epic smackdown that bankrupted liberal website

The ONE “forever war” Glenn Beck supports

Transcript

Transcript

Ron Paul EXPOSES How the Federal Reserve Keeps Up its Scam!