Professor With Freakishly Accurate Track Record Predicts a Trump Victory

Professor Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University in New York has a remarkable track record of correctly predicting presidential election outcomes. This year, he predicts Republican Donald Trump the winner. His website, PrimaryModel.com, boasts an 87 to 99 percent certainty of this outcome. But, one might wonder if Professor Norpoth's winning model takes into account a very important factor: This ain't your momma's presidential election.

"The model cannot account for historically bad candidates. That's not what it does. It assumes you're nominating an average Republican, and that's not what we did here," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Norpoth's model takes into account primary election results and how the candidates performed. He's been tracking primaries for about 100 years, since 1912.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these rigged questions:

• What two state primaries did Norpoth use for his prediction?

• Is Norpoth alone among academics predicting a Trump win?

• Who do prediction markets say will win and by what margin?

• Are Pat and Stu more excited about Halloween or the election being over?

• Has Trump led or trailed in the last 13 polls?

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

PAT: And he should be thinking about this in a positive way. Professor Helmut Norpoth, who has predicted -- now, you probably don't know the name, necessarily. It might not jump out at you exactly.

JEFFY: Professor Helmut Norpoth?

PAT: Helmut Norpoth.

STU: Hang on. Helmut Norpoth

PAT: The -- the Helmut Norpoth, who has predicted, by the way, the last five elections correctly --

JEFFY: You don't have to tell us.

PAT: I know. I didn't mean to talk down to you. I apologize.

STU: Last five. So the two Bushes president two Obamas -- and going.

PAT: And then the Clinton.

STU: The Clinton. So there's really only two close calls there: Bush/Gore, which, by the way, Gore, of course, won the popular vote. Obviously, the electoral vote is the one that counts --

PAT: Okay. Maybe it's the last 50. Last 50 elections.

STU: Last 50 elections? How old is this guy?

PAT: He says there's an 87 percent chance of a Trump win.

STU: Interesting.

PAT: 87 percent chance that Trump wins this thing. He was about the only one. He was on TV over the weekend. And here's what he had to say.

VOICE: Despite what recent polls say and what everyone in Washington and on television is saying, this RealClearPolitics poll -- clean this one -- this man is sticked by his prediction of a Trump victory. Here to explain is Stony Brook University Professor Helmut Norpoth.

PAT: Now, see, you're mocking him. He's from Stony Brook. Now mock him.

STU: No one is mocking Helmut.

PAT: You can't.

STU: This is -- if it was some imposter, that would be one thing. But this is the Helmut Norpoth.

PAT: Okay. Right. This is the Helmut Norpoth from Stony Brook University.

VOICE: Professor, it's great to see you.

VOICE: Thank you very much for having me.

VOICE: So you are almost alone among academics predicting a Trump win. Not because you're coming out for Trump, but because you have a model that you believe leads to the conclusion he's going to win. Tell us about this model. How have you arrived to this conclusion?

VOICE: Well, there are two things. Okay? The model is called the primary model. So I take into account primary elections, real elections. How the candidates are performing. And I can track primaries for about 100 years, since 1912. So it's quite a set of elections.

VOICE: Yes.

VOICE: And it usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party's primaries or her party's primary beats the other guy who does less well. And so in this election, the primaries that I'm relying on is only New Hampshire and North Carolina.

VOICE: Yes.

VOICE: Donald Trump came out on top. Better than Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race.

VOICE: That seems like a fair measure.

And what's the other one?

PAT: It seems like --

STU: Wait. Hold on.

JEFFY: Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Okay?

STU: Wait. It seems like a fair measure to figure out the election results based on the two states -- including the one that he lost. We'll just pick the two states he won? What?

PAT: I knew you might take exception to that.

JEFFY: I mean, we're talking about professor --

PAT: We're talking about Helmut --

STU: Wait. So we're going -- you know, we obviously don't count the first primary election. But the second and third? I mean, he did really well. Well, yes, he did do very well in the second and third.

PAT: He won them.

STU: And then he went on to lose other states.

PAT: Right.

STU: You know, I mean, this was a competitive primary. This was a primary that lasted much longer. I mean, every candidate in recent memory, going back -- I can't even remember how long.

PAT: I know. I thought that was a bizarre --

JEFFY: Well, the professor went back 100 years.

STU: No, he didn't. You know, in a Republican primary, when was the last time we had one that went on that long? I mean, you're going way back, probably Reagan, right?

PAT: Probably.

STU: I mean, you're back to Reagan, since that has happened. I mean, this was not a blowout primary.

PAT: I think it went all the way to the convention. So it must have been that, yeah.

PAT: But I thought that was a pretty specious --

STU: That's a weird standard.

PAT: -- standard to base your findings on. Not the first one, where he lost. We're not looking at that. But the next two he did really well and he did even better than Clinton did in those two states. So?

STU: Remember too --

PAT: And?

STU: -- Clinton's opponent was in a neighboring state of New Hampshire.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So, you know, Sanders did well there in comparison. That is a -- that's an interesting one.

PAT: It is interesting. But there's more.

VOICE: The tendency after let's say two terms of a White House party being in office, there is a change.

PAT: This, I think, is legitimate. Once a party has had two terms in office, people are usually sick of them, unless they've been really good and there's demonstrable difference that's positive change in the country.

STU: Reagan is the last one for that too.

PAT: Yeah, and there certainly hasn't been that.

VOICE: And I can actually track that for a longer period of time, for almost 200 years. And that also gives a prediction that Republicans are favored this year.

VOICE: So a lot of us in the TV business make predictions. And we say it. And we say we believe it. But do we really believe it? Do we believe it enough to bet on it? Do you believe your prediction enough to put your money in a legal way in a betting market behind your prediction?

VOICE: Yes, I have. I've gone all-in in the Iowa market, which is sort of the oldest prediction market where it's legal to do that. And I bought shares of the Republican candidate, way, way long time ago. And I'm sticking with it.

PAT: All right. Turn you around?

STU: I mean, look, amazing stories are built on people who band against the odds, right?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We always forget these people when they lose. This guy does not get a follow-up interview about how his election was wrong if Donald Trump loses, right? This is it.

PAT: Yes, yes.

STU: But, I mean, if you want to look at the prediction markets, which I think is interesting -- I mean, the point being made there is, do you believe it? You put your money where your mouth is. Currently, prediction markets say Hillary Clinton is going to win with a 90 percent certainty. It's 90 to ten.

PAT: That's amazing.

STU: And that's prediction markets.

PAT: Ten.

STU: And I mean this honestly, if you are sitting there at home, and you're like, "You know what, these online polls have convinced me that Donald Trump is going to win," you can get five to one on your money right now. Five to one!

PAT: And that's not a bad bet, really. I mean, would it shock you to wake up on November 9th and realize that Donald Trump is the next president? It wouldn't blow me away. I would be a little surprised, but, you know, we've been surprised by him so many times.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: That's for sure.

PAT: It wouldn't be mind-blowing. That's for sure.

STU: The one thing that would be interesting --

PAT: It's more than a 90 to ten chance, I think.

STU: I think you're right. But that's not where the money is, for what that's worth.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I think -- you're right, I think he has a better chance than 10 percent. But, you know, we sat here and looked at this thing. And we keep saying, "Oh, he's surprised us so many times." He's surprised us in the primary process, absolutely. I mean, I outwardly have said that I was completely wrong on predicting that. But the reason I was wrong was because I wasn't listening to the scientific polls. I was giving you answers on why the scientific polls wouldn't give up, as they haven't held up for previous candidates like Herman Cain. And name -- we went down that list 10 million times.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: You know, a lot of people flared up and were big for a while and then fell away. Donald Trump didn't do that.

PAT: We saw it over and over and over again.

STU: So he did that. But, again, Trump was leading in the polls the whole time.

PAT: Yeah, that's true.

STU: This is the opposite. For example, the last 13 polls, Trump has trailed in North Carolina. He -- he has no chance of winning the election if he can't win North Carolina. Now, he has to win North Carolina and like ten other states that would be considered swing states. Because North Carolina, to Mitt Romney was barely even a swing state. He's lost 13 straight polls in that state. At what point -- I mean, these are not swing states anymore.

PAT: The polls are rigged, Stu. You know that. The polls are rigged.

STU: Maybe. But when it gets to that point, where your argument -- you're in Helmut land.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Well, I noticed that the elections where Trump did well, he did well. Okay. Well, that -- I mean, maybe that will work then. I don't know. Again, he might be right. You never know with this stuff. But I doubt --

PAT: Yeah.

(laughter)

STU: I'm going to be a little bit of a skeptic on that.

[break]

PAT: It's just, we are a week for Halloween, and we are -- we are two weeks and a day away from the election. Two weeks and one day. And then this thing is finally over.

STU: I can't wait. I mean, I cannot wait.

PAT: Then we can stop talking about it.

STU: By the way, can we just quickly before we move on address an oddity of Helmut's analysis in the last break?

PAT: Yes. Okay.

STU: His point was the first two primaries, Donald Trump won. Which, of course, if you exclude the first caucus. So if you get rid of Iowa for some reason and only count New Hampshire and South Carolina --

PAT: And really, the only reason to get rid of it is because it's a caucus and you're not counting those.

JEFFY: Correct.

STU: Or you're just looking for a justification for why it would be good for Donald Trump.

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: The professor said primaries.

STU: Okay. Fine. So, okay. Primaries, there you go.

But his point was that he did better than Hillary did in those states.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Here are the results from South Carolina's primary. Donald Trump did win. 33-23. Okay? Over Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is 22. Hillary Clinton won 74-26.

PAT: Wow.

STU: That's not -- my recollection of South Carolina was that Hillary Clinton did really well there. And the other state is the neighboring state -- he's from Vermont. So Bernie Sanders, of course, did better there.

PAT: Yeah. He won Vermont?

STU: I'm trying to --

PAT: Sanders? I mean, my guess would be yes.

STU: I think so.

PAT: Probably by a lot.

STU: New Hampshire you mean?

PAT: Yeah. New Hampshire.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Wow.

STU: But that's just a weird -- a weird point.

PAT: It's strange criteria.

STU: Yes. I would say that I'm just -- the easiest way to think about this -- and, yes, he did win that: 60-38. Trump won it 35-16.

JEFFY: I'm sure the professor took into account that Donald Trump had two people against him, where Hillary only had one. So Trump believes out on top on that.

STU: Yeah, okay. Thank you, Jeffy. It was --

PAT: I think that's deeper than the professor actually went.

(laughter)

That was good, Jeffy. That was some thinking.

JEFFY: Thank you.

STU: We should do a -- because he's betting on the markets, the prediction markets. We should do a prediction of whether Helmut gets an interview if Trump loses. If Trump loses, we just never hear Helmut's name again. Right?

JEFFY: No.

STU: Until he comes up with a new model that's been right for 250 years.

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: Four years from now.

STU: Right. Four years from now, he'll be back in the media saying, "Look, I have a model that was correct."

PAT: There was another professor though. Maybe not a professor. Some sort of analyst, elections analyst who similarly -- but he has 14 different pieces of criteria that he uses. And he has predicted every election correctly since 1970 or something. I mean, it's -- it was dating back a long time. It was 12 elections in a row or something to that effect. And he's been right every time. And he also said Trump.

STU: Yeah, there was -- I think I know what point you're talking about.

PAT: It was a different guy than this one.

STU: Wow.

PAT: And his seemed to be much more substantial.

STU: Right. And a lot of these models -- every year, every election there's a model that comes out like this, that's been right for a million -- I mean, wasn't the Washington Redskins' win a week before the election --

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: There's always some weird, quirky thing --

PAT: And it was wrong.

STU: And, of course, they're eventually wrong. The last one that came out like this though was an economic model. And it really has a lot of basis. But in their write-up of this election was Trump should win. However, the model cannot account for historically bad candidates. That's not what it does. It assumes your average -- you're nominating an average Republican. And that's not what we did here.

PAT: He's not your average -- like him or don't, he's not your average Republican.

STU: Right.

PAT: I think we can all agree on that.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Collier County Fairgrounds on October 23, 2016 in Naples, Florida. Early voting in Florida in the presidential election begins October 24. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

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.