Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2023 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Should Those Who Are #NeverTrump Finally Yield?

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Glenn read an opinion piece on air Wednesday that he likened to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, a masterpiece of satire described as wildly comic, deadly serious and strikingly original.

"I want to take you to a modern-day Screwtape Letter written by Erick Erickson today," Glenn said. "If you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump --- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I --- but I want you to listen to this."

Erickson's op-ed showed his thoughtful analysis of the two candidates. His conclusion? We definitely have a savior, but which one will it be?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these thought-provoking questions:

• Why does Erick Erickson think he's in a no-win position?

• How would a Hillary Clinton presidency be completely anti-American?

• What caused Erickson to actively reconsider his opposition to Trump?

• If God chose Abraham, Samson and David to lead, should we choose Trump?

• What did Erickson decide after reconsidering?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So it's very interesting. I read an op-ed piece today by Erick Erickson that I want to talk about. Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. And if you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump -- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I. But I want you to listen to this.

Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. Now, the point on this that I want to make has nothing to do with Donald Trump, but the conversation that came from this article had something to do with something much, much bigger than Donald Trump.

Listen to this: Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump by Erick Erickson.

The polling has drawn even closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are Never Trump should finally yield, knowing that we can now beat Hillary Clinton.

I'm in an odd position. I'm mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump.

Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump. And Trump supporters will blame people like me for his lost. So I suppose I should say that I'm not in an odd position: I'm in a no-win position.

With Donald Trump's rise in the polls and increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anti-American.

I realize that saying Hillary Clinton's candidacy in my view is anti-American offends some or comes off as hyperbole, but I think her candidacy is fundamentally an anathema to and is fundamentally in opposition to the basic historic American values. I believe the Founders of this country recognized individual liberty as negative liberty. It wasn't what individuals could do if the government could help them make this country great. Rather, it was what individuals could do if the government left them alone.

Hillary Clinton's vision of a Leviathan nanny state runs counter to all of those ideals. She would expand the government, engage the government in social experimentation, and she would advance the agenda of the sexual revolution against the church.

I am under no delusions: With Clinton as president, the church in this country will be in for difficult times. The siege from the outside, the forces of Mordor, will be fully on the march.

That's -- anybody disagree with that? Because I agree with that 100 percent.

JEFFY: So far.

GLENN: With Hillary Clinton, the Supreme Court will fall into the hands of the left for a generation at least. The devastation -- listen to this -- the devastation to our social fabric will know no end. Trading in the idea of negative liberty, Clinton and a left-wing Supreme Court will pursue expansionist federal policies and concepts of positive liberty, which will advance the individual prurient interests of deviance against the church in the way Founders could not have anticipated and no rational person would think wise. But Clinton as president will mean the insane have taken over the asylum.

Anybody disagree with any of that?

Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, quote, what was once stigmatized --

JEFFY: That's what I mean.

GLENN: Anybody take a guess who she is.

JEFFY: You cannot disagree with Himmelfarb.

PAT: No, you can't.

GLENN: You can guess who she is.

PAT: We don't have to guess. Glenn, we've talked about that --

JEFFY: Glenn.

GLENN: She wrote a very important book that you all should read.

Anyway, what was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned. What was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized.

As deviancy is normalized, so what was normal now becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral, the bourgeoisie family, as it is now called, is now seen as pathological.

PAT: We've been saying that so long, we call it Himmelfarbian.

JEFFY: Right. Yeah, we are part of the Himmelfarbians.

GLENN: The Clinton presidency will lock that in.

Is there any disagreement with that?

PAT: True. No, that's --

GLENN: What they've done -- by the way, she wrote a book about the Hitler era. And I can't remember the name of it. But look it up. Very famous book.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And she is -- she was taking it apart and saying, "Here's how it happened, and here's how it can happen again." And that is describing that society and our society.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Yeah. Go ahead tell the Himmelfarb society about the fact that she wrote a book about Nazi Germany. Good idea. We know --

PAT: Don't talk --

GLENN: Okay. In addition to that, the increasingly illiberal left will further capitulate in the forces of evil, choosing to surrender to radical Islamists blowing themselves up as a new normal.

By the way, this is Erick Erickson writing, I think we all need to take a step back and reconsider. Especially if you are a Never Trumper, we have to look at the facts. Fix reason firmly in her seat.

In short, I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all of my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Furthermore, I think she should be in jail.

Anybody disagree?

PAT: No.

GLENN: At least with Trump, he writes --

PAT: I mean, she might get a trial first.

GLENN: She should get a trial.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: At least with Trump, we might -- might get a better Supreme Court. We might get better cabinet picks. In fact, in terms of my view of the country, the odds are pretty great that my side has a greater chance of prevailing with Trump than with Clinton.

I don't agree with that. But that's interesting.

What --

PAT: And that's the argument we hear all the time.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Supreme Court.

GLENN: He believes that.

What most would identify as my side would have control of the executive branch and the powers of appointment and regulation that come with it. Oh, I see what he's saying.

What he deems his side would because they would control all three branches.

PAT: Yes. Right.

GLENN: So I should at least here and now as the race draws close, reconsider my opposition to Trump.

The truth is, with the headlines about the Clinton's emails, terrorist attacks, Obama administration's advancement of transgenderism in the military, I have been actively reconsidering my opposition to Trump. I've done it in conversations with friends, in prayer, in quiet time, dedicated to considering the future.

So did he reconsider, and did he change his point of view? In a second.

Real quick, Himmelfarb is not the woman I was thinking of. I was thinking of another woman with a funny name, and I can't remember her name. Himmelfarb, we looked it up in the middle of the break, is Bill Kristol's mom, which no idea.

But, anyway, so Erick Erickson says, "We really need to -- as this race comes this close -- to reconsider the opposition to Trump if you are a Never Trumper."

I'm a Never Clinton guy, and I'm a Never Trumper. And so far, everything that he has written about Hillary Clinton I believe is absolutely true. She is -- she is poison -- poison to the republic.

Here's what he writes: In doing so, I have to admit that while I view Hillary Clinton's campaign as anti-American, I view Donald Trump's campaign as un-American.

Now, listen to this.

The American spirit eschews the idea of a strongman in Washington fixing all of our problems. We're supposed to be against the imposition of values set by Washington. Instead, we should embrace our heterogeneity as people. Not only does Donald Trump not do that, but his views pervert the liberal order of things, as much as Clintonian illiberalism. Clinton offers a tyranny of the minority. Trump offers a tyranny of the majority.

Clinton offers neither safety nor freedom, and Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom. While I see Clinton as having no virtue, I see Donald Trump corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism. More importantly, while I think Hillary Clinton will do long-term damage to the country, I believe that Donald Trump -- writes Erick Erickson -- will do far more damage to the church, and that is my priority.

A Clinton administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump administration will see the church poisoned from within. I see it happening even now.

This past Friday, I debated the merits of Trump and sat next to a Christian who argued that because God chose sinners -- I can't -- this argument, I hear all the time -- we should choose Trump. She argued that a bunch of other presidents were terrible, immoral people, and we should be okay with Trump. She argued that God chose Abraham, Samson, and David, so we should choose Trump.

I don't recall John F. Kennedy writing books, bragging about his affairs. I don't recall Bill Clinton telling a television audience that he wanted to have sex with his daughter. How far a Christian must fall to justify the low morals of a man by tearing down the reputation of others, is sometimes exaggerated manners?

I do recall God choosing Abraham, Samson, and David, and all of them repenting for their sins. That repentance stands in studied contrast to Donald Trump, who has three times said that he has never had to ask for forgiveness. And he only recently said his advance of the church, if elected, would be the only thing that gets him into heaven.

When I see Christians defining deviancy down to justify political decisions, I see a real problem for the church. When I see Christians saying that we have the license to choose bad men because God chooses bad men, I see the sparks of apostasy.

Many of my friends have turned themselves over to the anger of Trump displays. I see my friends on Twitter in meltdown tweeting profanity to others, spending their time on radio attacking friends by name for refusing to yield. That's not healthy.

Not only is it not healthy, it reeks of desperation. This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God our Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress and keep one's self unstained by the world, James said.

Trump has openly championed funding an organization that would murder the would-be orphan and sell his organs, while he cheated widows and single moms of their money. And more and more Christians are championing these stains while staining themselves. The level of fear many of my friends have towards what a Clinton administration may bring has turned to desperation and desire for a protector.

But we already have one. Neither in life nor death, angels or rulers, nor present things nor to come, nor powers, nor height, depth, nor anything else in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God and Christ Jesus.

So many pastors who email me and beg me to reconsider and so many others who write do so because they think this is the last chance to get the nation right. They think we'll turn a corner after which we cannot turn back. While I can see they might be right, what I see is a level of desperation, causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God and in truth. I do not concede that they're right, but I have concluded, we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump.

We are beyond the point of looking to five black-robed masters to save us from ourselves. When we put up Clinton or Trump, the seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already, and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized path that neither never existed and in the future that is not theirs but rather God's to shape.

Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man to conquer death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in trying to blame patriotism to Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls. And for the church to rise, the country must rise.

But Christ has already risen. The true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

He goes -- he goes on. And I believe this is so well reasoned and so well thought out. Now, you may not agree with it. But it is at least a cogent argument and a statement of principles.

Featured Image: Erick Erickson

Here are the TOP 11 BOOKS from the Western Philosophical Tradition that you MUST know about

Hulton Archive / Handout

Glenn wants to dive deep into different philosophical topics this year. As CRT and woke curricula are demonizing the "western tradition," it is vitally important that we preserve the tradition that gave birth our nation and gives context to the culture we live in today. Here are the top 11 books to give you a crash course in the western philosophic tradition. If you don't have the time to read them, you can find an overview to each of the books below!

1. Plato's Republic

The first titan of Greek philosophy, Plato articulated the set of questions that would drive the future western philosophical tradition. The pre-eminent question among Greek philosophers was "what is the thing that explains everything." In philosophical lingo, this question is framed as "what is the logos or the good." Plato argued that reality could be explained in terms of the "forms." For example, when you see multiple examples of a "courageous" act, then, Plato would argue, there is such a thing as "courage." The form of "the good" is the form that gives meaning to all of reality. Humans use their rational minds to contemplate what is good and then align their desires to "the good" in order to pursue it.

2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The second titan of Greek philosophy was none other than Aristotle, who was a student of Plato. Aristotle deviated from his teacher's claims about "forms" and instead argued that every single thing has a purpose, a telos. For example, the telos of a chair is to provide a place for someone to sit. In the same way that a chair's purpose is to provide a place for someone to sit, Aristotle argues that the telos of human beings is to pursue happiness.

In the first page of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that every action is done for the sake of pursuing happiness, although, all too often, our actions are misplaced. We often pursue things we believe will make us happy when, in reality, they are fleeting, momentary pleasures that result in despair, heartbreak, or pain. Rather than conforming the world around us to fit our momentary desires, Aristotle argues that we achieve happiness by understanding the nature of the world around us and how we fit into it by actively cultivating virtues in order to make our soul "fit to be happy." Work and action, therefore, are not mere moral "to-do lists," but rather bring us fulfillment.

3. Augustine's City of God

If Plato is the first titan of ancient philosophy, then Augustine is the first titan of medieval philosophy. Medieval philosophy begins with the re-discovery of ancient philosophical texts that had been lost throughout the Roman Empire. As Christianity had taken root and spread across the western world, medieval philosophy integrated these newly-discovered texts into Christian theology. Augustine is the pre-eminent medieval Neo-platonic philosopher, incorporating Plato's philosophy into Christian theology.

Augustine claimed that God himself is the ultimate "form" or "the good" from which all of reality derives its meaning and existence. A thing is "good" insofar as it coalesces with the way God intended it to be. When a thing stays away from God's intention, it is "not good." From this, we get the Augustinian definition of "evil" as a "privation" or "absence of goodness," which ultimately corresponds to God's nature and character.

4. Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Just as Augustine incorporated Plato's philosophy into Christian theology, the second medieval titan, Thomas Aquinas, incorporated Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology. Building from Aristotle, Aquinas argues that Christ is our happiness, the longing of every human heart and the object of every human action. Though we may think we are pursuing happiness outside of Christ, our this pursuit is misplaced and will result in fleeting pleasure and pain. True happiness and fulfillment, Aquinas argues, is found in Christ himself and the pursuit of his nature.

**Note: Aquinas' Summa is one of the largest works ever written and contains arguments about many different subjects--there are concise versions that will save you a lot of time!

5. Francis Bacon's Novem Organum

If medieval philosophy is defined by the incorporation of ancient philosophy into orthodox Christian theology, then the Enlightenment is defined as the rejection of both. English philosopher Francis Bacon kicked off the Enlightenment with a total rejection of the Aristotelian view of reality. The title of his book, the Novum Organum, or "the new order," is a deliberate tease of Aristotle's Organon, or "the order of things." Bacon's "new order" purports that, contrary to Aristotle, there is no inherent "nature" or "purpose" in reality. Rather, reality is something that we can conquer by means of knowledge and force, dissecting nature to its fundamental parts and reconstructing it into what we want. Bacon is considered the father of the scientific method, creating a testable means through which we can understand, break down and re-construct nature.

6. Descartes' Discourse on Method

Descartes is best known for his famous assertion, cogito ergo sum, or "I think, therefore, I am." In Discourse on Method, Descartes embarks on a rigorous endeavor to doubt anything that can be doubted. He postulates that all of reality can be doubted; however, the one thing that cannot be doubted, he concludes, is that there must be someonewho is doubting. Though we may think that we are in the matrix, we are thinking, therefore, we must exist.

Descartes's rigorous skepticism introduced a brand-new burden of truth. In order for something to be true, it must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Many continue to use Descartes' skepticism as a way to challenge religious belief. According to these modern-day skeptics, unless you can prove that God exists beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no way to actually know whether he exists. The severing of knowledge and faith is often attributed to Descartes.

7. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature

Scottish philosopher David Hume took aim at both Plato and Aristotle. One of his most famous and consequential claims about human nature is, "reason is and always ought to be slave of the passions." This took direct aim at Plato's view of human nature. Plato argued that our reason or "rationality" should always rule our passions so that we will desire what is good. Hume flips this on its head, claiming that our reason is helplessly enslaved to our passions and will inevitably justify what we will already want. From this, Hume introduced a new articulation of moral relativism, claiming that humans are not able to choose between what is good and what is evil, but rather will choose what they want over what they don't.

8. Kant's Contemplation on the Metaphysics of Morals

Hume's moral relativism sparked panic within German philosopher Immanuel Kant. If we will inevitably do what we desire, how can we ever choose to do something good and moral for its own sake? We must, according to Kant, separate morality completely from the passions if it's to be saved. Kant, therefore, argues that duty is the highest good that man can aspire to. We do the right thing, not because we want to--on the contrary, we do the "right thing" because it's our duty to do so, especially when we don't want to. This breaks away from the Aristotelian notion that our happiness is inextricably intertwined with the pursuit of "the good."

9. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche wasn't convinced by either Hume or Kant's efforts to retain some semblance of civility or relativistic moral standard. According to Nietzsche, if there is no such thing as transcendent morality, then "moral maxims" are reduced to meaningless words purported by the people in power. Morality, therefore, becomes a game of persuasion at best, coercion and force at worst. People are reduced to winners and losers, opressors and victims, and whoever comes out on top gets to impose their desired view of the world on the losers. Therefore, the goal of the individual is to cultivate the "will to power," to become the powerful "ubermensch" or "superhuman," or else you will be reduced to a victim susceptible to other people's coercion and oppression.

10. C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man

After the Enlightenment ends in a grand, destructive finale with Nietzsche, Christian philosophers in the 20th century attempt to pick up the pieces and resurrect the ancient and medieval philosophies that had been cast to the side. In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis famously laments that mankind has become "men without chests." This is a direct reference to Plato's view of human nature--there is nothing linking our mind to our heart. Intellectually, we have dissected all of reality into its individual bits, stripping it of its holistic beauty, while also succumbing to our whims and passions with no notion of a transcendent moral law. Lewis calls for the re-marriage of our minds and our hearts, so that we will not only pursue what is good, but moreover, we will desire to do so.

11. Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue

The latter part of the 20th century saw the resurgence of Aristotelian ethics after being largely dismissed over the past 400 years during the Enlightenment. Scottish Catholic philosopher Alasdair McIntyre was and continues to be one of the foremost leaders of this movement. In his magnum opus, After Virtue, McIntyre takes aim at the entire Enlightenment project itself and shows how it ultimately fails by its own standards. If reality is a mere power dynamic, as Nietzsche argues, and if morality is an act of persuasion and passion, as Hume purports, then we have no reason to take their views seriously. If all of reality is relative, then the statement "reality is relative" is itself relative. It becomes victim of the self-refutation of its own standards. Transcendent morality, he argues, must exist, because there must be some standard by which we judge reality and can say with determination, "this is good" and "this is evil."

The Biden Admin EXPANDED abortion access because they DON'T believe in the Constitution

Joshua Lott / Stringer, JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

This month has already produced an extreme example of why we need a functional and more conservative Congress in order for America to have a chance at moving forward—because the Left does not believe in the Constitution.

Sure, if you confronted a Democrat in Congress, they would probably claim some sort of allegiance to the Constitution—but as a practical matter, they do not believe in it.

Instead, the Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch. Why? Because it has the furthest reach through all the various departments, and it can move the fastest—in short, because it’s the most dictatorial. It only takes a department head to write a new memo, or even better, the President to sign a new executive order to carry the force of law.

The Left has put all of their eggs in the basket of the executive branch.

Do you recall any of the Left’s favorite Supreme Court decisions over the years—something like gay marriage for example—and how Republicans immediately tried to subvert it, using the executive branch to try to nullify the decision? Yeah, that never happened. But that is exactly what Democrats have done in recent weeks to expand abortion access.

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions. When the miraculous overturning of Roe v. Wade happened last summer, President Biden called it “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court.”

Democrats only consider the Supreme Court legitimate when they approve of the decisions.

Recently the FDA approved local pharmacies to issue abortion pills. For the first 20 years after these pills were developed, they were not treated like typical prescription drugs. They had to be dispensed in-person by a doctor. That in-person requirement is now gone.

Keep in mind that the Left’s go-to line is that abortion is always about the health and safety of women, yet a 2021 peer-reviewed study found that chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions. Between 2002 and 2015, the rate of abortion-related ER visits following use of the abortion pills increased by 507 percent.

Chemical abortions have a complication rate four times greater than surgical abortions.

And now the Biden administration is making these less-safe abortions much more accessible. Thanks to the FDA’s rule change, Walgreens and CVS have already agreed to dispense abortion pills in states where abortion is legal—effectively turning these stores into new abortion clinics.

As for states that have abortion bans, "Team Biden" announced a new way around those too. Three weeks ago, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal. What’s their rationale? That the sender cannot know for sure whether the recipient will use the pills illegally or not. So it’s totally okay.

The U.S. Postal Service is allowed to deliver abortion pills anywhere, even in places where abortion is illegal.

Georgetown Law professor Lawrence Gostin told the Washington Post that this Justice Department opinion is “a major expansion of abortion access in the United States.”

So, to recap—the Biden administration has used the FDA, the Justice Department, and the Post Office, which all fall under the executive branch, to provide an end-run around the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision.

Expanding abortion was easy—simple policy tweaks and declarations that carry the force of law without an ounce of input from actual lawmakers in Congress—all because it comes from the grotesque, bloated, apparently pro-death executive branch.

15 SHOCKING quotes from the World Economic Forum Davos Summit that should deeply trouble you

Getty Images / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

Glenn is one of the most outspoken critics of the World Economic Forum and their vision to use crises to reconstruct the world order known as The Great Reset. The recent WEF summit in Davos confirms what Glenn has long warned about: globalist elites seek to upend our democracy, freedoms, and way of life to achieve their utopian climate goals. Here are 15 quotes from the 2023 Davos Summit, revealing their true intentions in their own words:

1. Saving the planet

When you hear the word, "Davos," the first thought that should pop into your mind is an elite group getting together to save the world from imminent climate disaster... at least they think of themselves that way. According to John Kerry:

I mean, it's so almost extraterrestrial to think about saving the planet.

2. Private jets

What most people think when they hear the word "Davos" is a group of global elites flying in on private jets to talk about climate change... and yes, John Kerry does own a private jet, no matter how many times he denies it:

I fly commercial [...] Exclusively.

3. Global Collaboration Village

You always hear some weird, dystopian projects coming out of WEF, like "The Global Collaboration Village," a new metaverse community aimed at strengthening "global cooperation." It sounds like the next installment of Brave New World. According to Klaus Schwab, Founder and President of the WEF:

The Global Collaboration Village is the pioneering effort to use the metaverse for public good, to create global cooperation and to strengthen global cooperation in the metaverse or using metaverse technologies. For me, it's a dream coming true because the village allows the Forum to create a more larger and open platform where everybody can participate.

4. Climate revolution

However, the core theme throughout WEF summits is the immediate need for a climate revolution and how businesses are selfishly blocking the revolution because they want to make an extra buck. Here's how John Kerry summed up the sentiment:

How do we get there? The lesson I have learned in the last years [...] is money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

5. Do or die

This often turns into alarmist language, like having to choose between wealth and our planet's survival... Joyeeta Gupta, Professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at University of Amsterdam, said it eloquently:

If we do the minimum at this pivotable moment in our history, then we and our children – even if we are rich – will live in the danger zone. But if we – business people, governments, citizens, cities – take action today, then we and our children will have a future worth looking forward to.

6. Colossal risks

Potsdam Institute's director Johan Rockström, used similar language, claiming we are "taking colossal risks with the future of civilization":

We are taking colossal risks with the future of civilization on Earth, we are degrading the life support systems that we all depend on, we are actually pushing the entire Earth system to a point of destabilization, pushing Earth outside of the state that has supported civilization since we left the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

7. Rain bombs

"Colossal risks" like... rain bombs? We didn't make that up. Ask Al Gore:

That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs.

Courtesy of the World Economic Forum

8. Survival comes down to this

How do we secure our survival? According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, we have to "end our addiction to fossil fuels." This entails wiping out our entire energy industry, displacing millions of workers, and relying on global governments to usher in a new green industry. In his words:

So, we need to act together to close the emissions gap, and that means to phase out progressively coal and supercharge the renewable revolution, to end the addiction to fossil fuels, and to stop our self-defeating war on nature.

9. Complete transformation

It isn't hyperbolic to argue that the globalist climate goals will completely transform the world economy. Even EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted:

The net-zero transformation is already causing huge industrial, economic and geopolitical shifts – by far the quickest and the most pronounced in our lifetime. It is changing the nature of work and the shape of our industry.

10. Scientific necessity

Of course, to bring about this "net-zero" transformation, we will have to override small, "political expediencies" like democracy to do what is "scientifically necessary." According to Zurich Insurance Group’s head of sustainability risk John Scott:

We’re living in a world right now where what’s scientifically necessary, and what is politically expedient don’t match.

11. Illegal hate speech

Doing away with "political expediencies" would also require the censorship of dissent, which would likely manifest in hate-speech laws. When asked by Brian Stelter how the discussion of disinformation relates to everything else happening today in Davos, European Commission VP Věra Jourová shared this prediction:

Illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law.

12. Climate first

We will also have to forego national interests on the international stage. America won't be able to advocate for policies and interests that benefit Americans. Instead, we will sacrifice national interests for the sake of global climate interests. French economy minister Bruno Le Maire said:

The key question is not China First, US First, Europe First. The key question for all of us is Climate First.

13. The role of war

We can also expect globalist leaders to use crises, like the war in Ukraine, to expedite the "net-zero transformation." Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz said:

Ultimately, our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 has been given an additional boost by Putin’s war. Now we have even more cause to move away from fossil fuels.

14. Blame game

Globalist leaders will continue to blame ALL of the crises in our society on climate change to justify the "net-zero transition," from the energy shortage to "mistrust, selfishness [and] xenophobia." Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez said:

Our present struggle is not only against Putin or the energy shortage. It is also against fear, mistrust, selfishness, xenophobia, and environmental disaster. And its outcome will define life in the West and beyond for decades to come.

15. Sacrifice for the greater good

While we sacrifice our national interests for the sake of the "greater global good," we can expect our foreign enemies, like China, to benefit. Suisse Chairman Axel Lehmann said:

The growth forecasts now for China is 4.5%. I would not personally be surprised when that would be topped.

Conclusion

Glenn has been clear about the distinction between wanting to transition to green practices on your own accord and being forced into that transition by globalist, unelected elites. Leaders at Davos will continue to use alarmist language to justify their crackdown on democracy and freedom to bring about their leftist utopia. We have to cut through the alarmist language and in order to protect our freedoms.

TRANSMAXXING is the NEW trend among men who want more social perks as women

Glenn has focused on exposing the dark side of the gender movements waging our culture war, and now, there's a new "trend" emerging as an offshoot to the transgender movement. A growing online community, particularly of men, who consider themselves "involuntarily celibate" or "incels" believe they can live a better life as a trans woman. Why? This community purports the world is rigged against men, particularly against traditionally "unattractive men." What's the solution? Stop being a man...

Incel or "involutarily celibate" communities have existed online in the dark corners of Reddit and Discord for years. The groups are marked by a hatred towards women, blaming them for rigging the world in their favor and denying them of sex. Several members of this growing community have been responsible for large acts of violence, most notably Alek Minassian, who killed 10 and injured 16 after driving a van into a busy area of Toronto in 2021.

However, the transgender movement has presented a new option for incel members: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em... or, in the Transmaxxers' case, "become them."

The online Transmaxxer's Manifesto says, “Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.” According to the manifesto, transitioning to female not only opens up a different pool of sexual partners, but moreover, you gain access to female-only spaces and are “able to extract resources from males.”

“Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.”

Another member wrote, "If you do not currently feel like living as a female you might have to work on fixing that ... Identifying as male or being emotionally attached to a male body is bad for you if being male results in you living a bad life.”

This new movement is significant because it is in stark contrast to the mainstream narrative that "transgenderism" is an innate quality. Now, it can be an "option" people choose for social advantage. A moderator going by the alias “Vintologi” on the Transmaxxing Discord server, which boasts over 1,200 members, told The Daily Caller:

Transmaxxing is about transitioning for personal gain rather than focusing on things like "gender identity." ... What matters when it comes to medical transition is whether or not said transition would actually be beneficial, thus the extent to which gender identity is innate does not inform us much regarding when medical transition is appropriate.

One incel member on Reddit lamented that he can't Transmaxx to "have sex with white trans women" and to have "all the benefits of [being] female."

Transmaxxing sheds light on a concerning issue as an increasing number of people, particularly the youth, identify as "transgender." What used to be considered as a "finge case" is now being seen as a social advantage. Glenn recently sat down with de-transitioner Chloe Cole, and the amount of pressure she experienced to become a transgender man AS A TEENAGER was ASTOUNDING. She discussed the new community, friendships, and affirmation she gained when she started her transition journey, and she lost ALL of those social perks when she began de-transitioning. She exchanged affirmation for death-threats, friendships for stone-cold silence.

Transmaxxing is a very specific example of a larger movement that is deeply concerning. Not only is the thansgender ideology problematic on its own merits, but now, we are seeing a rise of a distinction of "social advantage" based on gender affiliation. This is deviating away from the original notion that transgenderism is an innate quality. Now, many consider it more "socially advantageous" to identify as transgender than with your biological gender.