The Revolutionary Concept of American Equality and Fairness

The American and French Revolutions can be described in very similar ways: People were tired of being squashed by a king, being told what they could and could not do, how much tax to pay and what special licenses were required to work. They were tired of having one set of rules for the privileged few and another for the majority. While nobles sat in their powdered wigs wielding absolute power and control over them, the people were out working --- and they wanted to be left alone.

RELATED: America’s Last Stop on the Road to Revolution and Transformation

But there was a key difference. The French turned equality and fairness into vengeance and anger. Americans took a different course.

"The troops were going to kill everybody in Congress. They had just defeated one tyrant [and said] let's go defeat the tyrants in Congress who didn't pay us and wronged us," Glenn recounted Thursday on his radio program.

George Washington, though, turned away from vengeance, advising his troops against replacing one dictator with another. America's version of fairness was equal justice for all. Have we lost sight of that?

"I contend that's what's happening to us now, on both sides. People of faith want to be treated fairly. People in the inner cities want to be treated fairly," Glenn said. "Remember the principles of the Bill of Rights. If we could get agreement on seven out of 10, we're an American family again."

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So the idea of privilege and equality, that's what the French Revolution was all about. What was the American Revolution about, Pat?

If you had to boil it down...

JEFFY: Tea?

PAT: Freedom. Tea (chuckling).

GLENN: Freedom.

PAT: Freedom. I'd say liberty.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Self-determination. You know, obviously religious freedom was paramount.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

PAT: Taxation without representation.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Words matter. Words really matter. And the subtlety of words really matter.

And it's interesting, I'm taking a course now online about the French Revolution. And it's interesting to me how parallel things ran, but just a few changes in -- of history and a few changes of language, and the whole thing spirals out of control.

Because if you look at these -- and I would describe the American Revolution without -- without the typical buzzwords. I would say that the Americans were tired of being squashed by a king, tired of being told what they had to do, how much tax they had to pay, and having to have special licenses to do things, have somebody have absolute control over them, while they sat in their powdered wigs and the other people were out working. They just wanted to be left alone.

Well, I can describe the French Revolution exactly the same way, but let me tell you the beginning story of the French Revolution a different way.

[break]

GLENN: I told you now for a while that I'm more concerned about the day after the election, no matter who wins, than anything on the buildup of the election. Because we have to come together. And we don't want to come together right now. Nobody wants -- nobody wants to come together.

But we're going to have to come together after this election. And let me show you why. Let me take you back to the French Revolution.

The French Revolution, even Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were fooled, they said, "This is a fight for liberty, just like our fight for liberty. This is a fight for freedom and equality, just like ours." And let me show you how similar the situation was, not to America then, but to America today.

As I said earlier, the word "privilege" actually means private laws. The reason why we didn't like guilds here and the masons and everything else had a lot to do with, A, religion, but, two, had a lot to do with the guilds of the Old World. You had to be -- to be a bricklayer, you had to be a mason. It was like a union. And that's what happens in places like New York. You have to be a union member, or you cannot change the lightbulb.

In radio, in New York, when I went to New York in 1980s, WNBC, because they made a deal with the musicians union, back in the '50s, when they got rid of live music on the radio and started playing records, the union said, you're going to put out of work too many musicians. And so they made a deal and said, we'll hire the musicians' union to go back and get the record and put it on the turntable. Then we'll hire a -- a technical union to be able to put the needle on the record and push start.

Then a disc jockey, he'll be in his own union. He'll point to the tech producer to push that button. So it took three people to do what I always did by myself in New York. And they did it because everyone was in a guild or a union.

America hated guilds. We got away from that. Every man could chart his own course. And that's because in the Old World and especially in England, there were a couple of things: There were the lords and the ladies, and they ruled with absolute power.

The king and the lords and the ladies. The lords had so much power -- now, this is, you know, hundreds of years before the French Revolution, but it left a lasting, indelible mark on the people.

The lords had such a power, that on the day of your wedding, if the Lord chose to, he got your bride on the wedding night. So she lost her virginity to the lord.

He would take her from the altar, to the castle, have sex with her, kick her out, and then you can have her. And he did this because, A, you know, he's a guy, why not?

JEFFY: Why not?

GLENN: I can grab them by the -- and do whatever I want with them, and they're not going to say anything about it.

And he did it also to show power over them. "Your life is mine." Now, that law changed, but it still was part of the psyche of the average person of France.

So you had the lords and the ladies, they were one percent. Then you had the clerics, one percent. And everything had to go through those two. You had to pay a tax to those two.

PAT: I think that ended with the Magna Carta, right?

GLENN: In England. I don't think it happened in France.

PAT: No. Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. And then in France, then you also had the guilds start up. And if you wanted to be a bricklayer, you had to go through this guild. And they were usually started by one of the aristocrats. So that way, they got a percentage of your labor. So you were paying taxes to the lords and the ladies. You were then paying 10 percent to the church. And then you were paying a percentage to your guild.

But if you belonged in a guild, it was the only way you could get off of the farm. It was the only way you could advance and do a better job than just farming and feeding chickens.

So the person was just trapped. You had to pay your way out of everything. France loved the fact -- and they still do. They think they're the center of the universe. And they're the center of all thought and the center of all art and the center of all whatever.

It was like the fashion world in everything. You know, now, "Oh, well, if you want the latest styles, you've got to see what they're doing in France." Whatever.

(chuckling)

But they prided themselves on that on everything. And France was, if not the richest country in the world, one of the richest countries in the world. And it was generally new money because the ships and commerce were coming in from the New World into France. And you could buy and sell everything there.

Capitalism was starting to take a root in -- in England, which started -- or, in France. Which started to change everything. Because now people were working on the seas. People were working in trade. People were buying and selling. And everything started to become up for grabs with money.

So capitalism started to disrupt this little fiefdom that all the lords and the ladies had. And if you had enough money, you could buy your way in to privilege. That's what the guilds did. Privilege meant private laws.

Those are the laws for the peasants, they don't apply to me. You, as a peasant, can go take somebody on their wedding night and take them to your house and have sex with them and then kick them out and say, "Eh, go to your husband now." You'd be arrested. But because you live a life of privilege, of private laws, you could do that.

So the people said, "We want fairness, and we want equality. The top 2 percent are controlling the 98 percent, and that's not right."

Does any of this sound familiar? What the people wanted was an end to privilege. See if this sounds familiar. They don't want people to be poor. They're not trying to -- the average person does not have a problem with a rich person, with a person in power. They have a problem that the people in power, if you took six pictures on a submarine and sent them to your children, you will go to prison for a year. You destroy 33,000 documents on a private server that you shouldn't have and they're all top secret, nothing happens to you. That's privilege. A life of private laws. Laws for this class are different than laws of that class.

Nobody has a problem with -- with Clinton and what she believes or what she does. It's how she enacts them. It's the things she gets away with that is the real problem with the Clintons. They get away -- I hate to say this because so many people think this is literal. They get away with murder.

In fact, what's the number now, Pat?

PAT: 104.

GLENN: 104. One hundred and four murders. They just get away with murder. Okay?

STU: No. No.

GLENN: No, I've read that the on internet.

PAT: It's the internet.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Stu, if you'd just do a little research for a change...

GLENN: Right. Now, what's the other problem we have with the political class? The other problem we have with the political class is you don't have the same choice.

Do you think that Evan McMullin feels that he has the same chance of winning as the Republican?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Do you think Gary Johnson thinks he has the same chance? Jill Stein, does she have the same chance? Bernie Sanders, who was a Democrat, does he have the same chance? No. Why?

Because she was privileged with the superdelegates. Now, he didn't win without the superdelegates, but, still, the privilege -- the private laws for the uber insider gets the advantage.

And so all we're saying -- all Bernie Sanders people are saying is, "Make it fair. Make it fair. No special access for anybody. Make the laws apply to everyone. Give me a chance."

Why does -- why does Donald Trump or George Soros or anybody -- Hillary Clinton, anybody in that class, why do they pay less in taxes than I do?

Well, it's quite simple. Because their income isn't important to them anymore. They make income through their investments and their trust funds which are all protected. You can't do that.

And so when they argue about the rich getting richer, they don't argue about their class. Nobody is talked about the trust funds. What they're talking about is damaging those people who are not in the trust fund area. The 250,000 dollar people. Those aren't the rich people.

The billions of dollars people are the ones who are getting rich. They're gaming the system. And Donald Trump has said, "Those are the laws." And he's right, those are the laws. He's not breaking any laws.

He is doing the law as it is stated. The people are saying, "Let's make the laws fair for everybody." But you can't. Why?

Because what happened at the French Revolution that didn't happen in America, what happened in America was, we didn't want vengeance. We didn't want a king. We wanted everyone to be equal and us to be a nation of laws and not of men.

And there were times the Temple of Honor story with George Washington, where the troops were going to kill everybody in Congress, they had just defeated one tyrant, let's go defeat the tyrants in Congress who didn't pay us and wronged us. And George Washington said, "No." We didn't overthrow one dictator to have -- to replace him with another. That's not who we are. We don't hate anybody. We love the law.

It's why when the Mormons were thrown out of the country and chased out of the country, they didn't hate America. They were literally chased out of the country. Utah was not America. They were chased out of the country. Their men were killed. They were slaughtered. They buried their children. It was the first extermination order of a religion, the only one in American history.

You have the right to kill them. And it wasn't really about religion. It was about slavery and Missouri and Kansas. That's what that was really about. They were chased out. And what was the first thing they did?

When they arrived in the valley, Brigham Young said, "We're having a parade."

Now, imagine being chased out of your home, being killed by Americans. Your husband. You lost your child on the way because Americans tried to kill you because of what you believed in. And Brigham Young said, "Let's have a parade and celebrate." And what did they celebrate?

America. From outside of America, the men -- and I can't remember which carried which, but the men carried the Declaration of Independence and the women carried the Constitution. And the point of the parade was, "It is the principles that will always hold things together." The people may go bad, but we don't hate the people. We understand that they lost sight of these sacred principles.

That's the American way. The French way was to turn equality and to turn fairness into vengeance and anger.

And I contend that's what's happening to us, now on both sides. People of faith want to be treated fairly. People in the inner cities want to be treated fairly. And we each have somebody who wants power whispering or shouting in our ear, get them. They don't understand you. They'll never understand you. They're against you. Forget about them.

Remember the principles and the principles of the Bill of Rights. If we could get agreement on seven out of ten, we're an American family again.

And I don't know how we can't get there. Because those are basic, fundamental rights that every American should be able to understand.

Featured Image: Oil on canvas painting of Washington crossing the Delaware by Bingham, between circa 1856 and circa 1871. Gift of Walter P. Chrysler, Jr., in honor of Walter P. Chrysler, Sr.

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.

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.

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.