GLENNFebruary 22, 2017

Weird Groupthink: Tribal Instinct Explains Milo Yiannopoulos

According to Psychology Today, the phenomenon known as groupthink "occurs when a group values harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the consensus."

The decision to rescind Yiannopulos' invitation to speak at CPAC was prompted by videos in which he praised pederasty, the act of grown men having sex with post-pubescent boys. However, those videos had long been available on the internet. Why did they make a difference now?

Jonah Goldberg, conservative thought leader and senior editor at National Review, recently published an opinion editorial in The LA Times, diving deep into how the invitation was extended in the first place:

From the outset, many on the right who do not consider themselves part of the Cult of Milo opposed his invitation. The disturbing thing is that, absent these videos, we would have lost the fight.
Even now, Schlapp defends the initial decision to invite Yiannopoulos. On Monday’s ”Morning Joe,” he insisted: “The fact is, he’s got a voice that a lot of young people listen to.” A lot of young conservative people, he should have added, precisely because he enrages so many young liberals.
And that’s part of the problem. We are in a particularly tribal moment in American politics in which “the enemy of my enemy is my ally” is the most powerful argument around.

"This is fascinating," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

Glenn made the case that what happened to moderate Democrats under Barack Obama is now happening with Republicans under Donald Trump.

"Now that Barack Obama is gone, it's left a vacuum of just who was around him. Hillary Clinton and the Blue Dog Democrat are gone. The Blue Dog Democrat no longer exists. The Hillary Clintons no longer exist. So who are you left with? You're left with Marxists and radicals. And now the Democratic Party is saying, "Oh, man, this is . . . wait. Hold it." And they're seeing --- not all of them --- but enough are seeing what we saw," Glenn said. "The same thing is going to happen with the Republican Party."

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

GLENN: I want to -- I want to tell you the story about this New Yorker who is becoming a conservative now. And I think these people existed under Obama, but they were -- they were willing to accept more -- let me see if I can find this. From -- yeah --

PAT: You think there were Democrats that were shocked by the radicalism of Obama?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

PAT: I mean, his radical ideology where he virtually has Marxist policies. Because we never heard from them.

GLENN: Because I think the same way we're not hearing from conservatives who are shocked by Donald Trump and some of the things that he does and the radicals he has around him. Nobody is saying anything about that.

And it's because you're going to get shouted down, and a lot of people are like, "Well, but I like kind of the stuff -- I like the direction he's headed. So just don't say anything." Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they don't see that -- like they're seeing right now in the Democrats, once you lose, who really is in charge? And so the Democrats -- when I read this thing from the Democrats, it will blow your mind.

But here's what is happening. Here's what happened to the Democrats. And we're at the beginning of it. This comes from Jonah Goldberg. Now, this is just about what happened with Milo and CPAC. The decision to rescind the invitation was prompted by a surfacing of videos, available long on the internet, which Milo praised -- how do you say it? Pederasty? Pederasty. Sex between an older man and prepubescent boys as young as 13. From the outside, many on the right who do not consider themselves part of --

PAT: Had you even heard of such thing?

GLENN: No.

PAT: The reason we don't know how to pronounce a word is because I've never heard of it.

GLENN: I've never heard of it.

PAT: It's the distinction. It's supposed to be post-pubescent. Right? So pedophilia is prepubescent. And after is post.

GLENN: And this is post.

Those who consider themselves part of the cult of -- opposed his invitation. The disturbing thing is, absent these videos, we would have lost the fight, said Jonah Goldberg.

Even now, Schlapp defends the initial decision to invite Yiannopoulos. On Monday's Morning Joe, he insisted, the fact is, he's got a voice that a lot of young people listen to, a lot of young conservative people.

And Jonah says, we should be asking the question: Why are so many young conservatives?

Precisely because he enrages so many young liberals, and that's part of the problem. We're in a particularly tribal moment in American politics, which the enemy of my enemy is my ally. It's the most powerful argument around.

John Tubey, the evolutionary psychologist recently wrote that if he could explain one scientific concept to the public, it would be the coalitional instinct. In our natural habitat, to be alone was to be vulnerable. If you had no coalition, you were nakedly and at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency preexisting and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership.

This is why group belief is free to be so weird. We overlook the hypocrisies and the shortcomings within our own coalition out of a desire to protect ourselves from our enemies.

This is fascinating. We'll come back to it in a second.

[break]

GLENN: So going over Jonah Goldberg's editorial yesterday in the LA Times. And he's talking about how we are overlooking hypocrisies on our own side. And I contend -- I want to share this with you because I believe this is what happened to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is in worse shape than the Republicans are, by far. They are now fighting for the soul of the party. Are they going to be this Marxist radical party, or are they going to come back to the center?

And I think that Barack Obama gave them -- was such a distraction that nobody cared about who was -- except for us, who was advising him. You know, who were the guys that were really -- that influenced his life and shaped him? And who were the people -- the Bill Ayers and the Bernardine Dohrn and all those people that were in and around this White House? And it gave us, I believe, a false belief on who the average Democrat is.

And that's because I think the average Democrat looked at Barack Obama the way many Republicans are looking at Donald Trump. They may not like him. They may not like all of those -- but they're not -- they're not concerned about Steve Bannon. They're not concerned. They think he's going to be held in place. This is America. We're not going to go against Europe and NATO. That's just not going to happen. And we're going to be fine.

And he's moving the ball in our direction. I think that's the way most Republicans look at him. And they're like, "You know, tell me the things -- yes, he's done some things I don't like, but he's moving the ball in our direction, and we're winning, generally, on the things that we want." Right? Would you agree with that?

I think that's the way many Democrats felt under Barack Obama, except Barack Obama did not have the harsh edges that Donald Trump does. Barack Obama didn't make the average Democrat feel uncomfortable. He was -- he was super slick.

If you would have seen the people -- it's why they brought Michelle Obama at the very beginning back into the White House. You can't talk because she was making average Democrat feel uncomfortable. Her last speech on the campaign trail, the first time around, was the speech where she said, "You know, we're going to have to change our tradition, we're going to have to change our thinking, our history. We're going to have to change everything." And they're like, "No, no, no, that's making Democrats worried."

So they didn't see the Marxist radical rot until now. And now they're being shouted down if they disagree with things like Keith Ellison. And they're saying, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I was really kind of more of a Hillary mainstream supporter, if you will." I think those Reagan Democrats who still voted for Democrat are really in search of a place to go.

Let me explain what happened to the Democrats by using Jonah Goldberg's words on what's happening to us right now. Today, the right sees the left as enemies. And I should say vice-versa.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a hero for many because he fights political correctness and is transgressive.

STU: This is a note, I have no idea really who this person is, and certainly no idea how to pronounce his name. But we should probably settle on one.

GLENN: I like Yiannopoulos.

STU: I don't know if that's it. But I'm fine --

GLENN: It's Yiannopoulos, right?

JEFFY: But we're settling with Yiannopoulos?

GLENN: Yiannopoulos. Yeah.

A flamboyant provocateur, who wears his homosexuality on his sleeve and acts very much like a left-wing performance artist. He gives the right an edgy cultural avatar to pit against the left. At a time when entertainment and celebrity matter more than facts and arguments, he is an entertaining celebrity.

Until recently, he was also a self-described fellow traveler of the racist and anti-Semitic alt-right. He advanced their worldview primarily from his perch as a senior editor of Breitbart News, the website formerly run by Steve Bannon, a senior adviser to President Trump, who also sought to make Breitbart the platform for the alt-right.

STU: Formerly.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Formerly. Yeah. Formerly. Sure. Formerly.

GLENN: Last year, alt-righters got attention for hurling bigotry at Trump's skeptical journalist on social media. For instance, my National Review colleague David French was subjected to almost daily pictures of his adopted black daughter Photoshopped in a gas chamber with a Nazi uniform-clad Donald Trump poised to push the button.

It was horrible stuff that happened to David French's family.

Yiannopoulos's defense of all of this was that it was funny and rebellious. Quote: Just as the kids of the '60s shocked their parents with promiscuity, long hair, and rock 'n' roll, so too do the alt-right youngs' meme brigades shock older generations with Holocaust jokes and Klan humor.

It was a way for he and his colleague -- it was, he and a colleague wrote for Breitbart, undeniably hysterical.

Well, writes Jonah Goldberg, I can deny that. Countless conservatives defend Milo who admits he's not a conservative, in much the same way Democrats defended the anti-Semitic radio priest Charles Coughlin, as long as he supported the New Deal as Christ's deal.

Conservatives cling to rationalizations to defend their champion. They say he distanced himself from the alt-right. He did cynically, only after "Daddy" -- his term for Donald Trump -- was elected. They credit his claim that he can say anti-Semitic things because his grandmother was allegedly Jewish, and he can say racist things because he sleeps with black men.

These are the kinds of arguments a coalition accepts when it has lost its moral moorings and cares only about winning. Free expression was never the issue. If it were, he would -- he'd be at CPAC and Breitbart expressing the case for ephebophilia. I don't even know what that is. Apparently, conservatives still draw the line there, but not at anti-Semitism or racism. The tent, sad to say, is still big enough for that.

That's Jonah Goldberg yesterday.

My thesis here is that there are a lot of conservatives right now, at least, who are looking at Donald Trump and saying, "I -- I'm -- I'm pretty okay with the direction of where he's going." Nothing bad has happened. Would you agree? We disagree with some of his appointments, but so far, okay. Right?

STU: There's been some good. Been some bad.

GLENN: Yeah, there's been some good. There's been some bad. And I think the average person feels that way on the left. Because we are falling to deaf ears on the thing -- the only thing that the left is hearing. And the left is hearing racist anti-Semitic -- they're looking at the people surrounding Donald Trump.

Basically, the same thing that we did when we were at Fox. We were looking at Van Jones. We weren't looking at President Obama. We were looking at Van Jones. We were looking at George Soros. We were looking at the people behind the man. Now, that was important for us back then because it's who you put in the office around you. And there were some mainstream people around Donald Trump -- I mean, around Barack Obama, that would -- that, of course, the left would say, "They're not all radicals." And they did a good job of washing those radicals clean like Van Jones.

No, he was a former communist. He's not really a communist. He never went to prison. He went to jail. Okay?

They did everything they could to whitewash him, to make their own constituency feel good because Barack Obama was doing the things that were making them happy. But we were saying at the time, guys, you can't give him this much power. You can't do this. Don't turn a blind eye.

Now that Barack Obama is gone, it's left a vacuum of just who was around him. Hillary Clinton and the Blue Dog Democrat is gone. The Blue Dog Democrat no longer exists. The Hillary Clintons no longer exist. So who are you left with?

You're left with Marxists and radicals. And now the Democratic Party is seeing, "Oh, man, this is -- wait. Hold it." And they're seeing -- not all of them -- but enough are seeing what we saw.

The same thing is going to happen with the Republican Party. And I think there's going to be a -- a pull from both of those parties. And what happened in 1854 is going to happen again. And it's going to be a party of common sense and common values, traditional values.

Let me say it that way. But I want you to understand, traditional values, not in the way conservatives view them.

I believe traditional values meaning the American values, which is the Bill of Rights. The people who actually on both sides say, "No, we don't want to spy on our neighbors." No, you don't have a right to spy on me. No, stay out of my bedroom. Stay out of my -- stay out of my pants and my bathroom stall. Stay out of my life. You don't have a right to tell me who I can marry, and you don't have a right to tell me what my priest or my pastor can say from the pulpit. You don't have a right to do that. Leave us alone.

Those traditional values that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I think -- and I could be wrong -- I may be being too optimistic. But I think that there is a coming movement of the Bill of Rights. And it's not going to be taken by the Libertarians. Because the Libertarians -- the Libertarians don't do enough for this moral foundation theory that we talked about. I'd like to take you guys -- you guys have to take this test. This moral foundations theory that we talked about, was it last week or this week?

STU: Last week.

GLENN: Last week. Last week, we had Jonathan Haidt on. He's a professor at NYU. Thought he was liberal. Started doing research and realized, "Holy cow, I'm conservative." And I think that is exactly the point.

When you start actually looking beyond the labels -- and he has devised the way to look beyond the labels. And it's called the moral foundation theory. And when you see that, the average conservative actually has five moral foundations.

But we only concentrate on three. Well, the left only has two. And they only concentrate on those two. And unfortunately, the three we concentrate on don't include those two.

And if we would concentrate on those two, we could bring them along. And because Libertarians don't have that moral foundation theory. They don't have any really of those five -- and I'm talking about as a party -- that's why they fell on deaf ears. That's why they couldn't get anybody from the right, and they couldn't get anybody from the left. Because they're speaking to an empty space, an empty auditorium where there's just not enough people.

What they have is the Bill of Rights. They don't have the moral foundations. And believe it or not, a different -- I can't even say that. Not what we claim as a -- as a morality party today. If I said that, you would think, "Well, that's a church-going, God-fearing, red, white, and blue, you know, served in the military -- not that. Not that. Think bigger foundational morals. Think of the Bill of Rights. Think of compassion. Those underscored by common sense are going to become fashionable again. I'm convinced of it.

RADIO

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

A new report accuses CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, of breaking state laws with its political activism. Glenn Beck reviews this story...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me go over what is -- what's happening with -- with CAIR.

You know, the Founding Fathers were obsessed over accountability.

Because they knew one thing. You know, they did. They must get suggestions from people on, you know, through tweets. They studied every single system of government.

Every single republic that survived. That didn't survive.

Why didn't it survive?

They studied all forms of government. They were trying to come up with something that could -- could set people free.

And they -- they worked really hard on putting our checks and balances in place, because they knew, once power slips into the shadows. They knew, once power slips into the shadows, once influence becomes unmoored from law, what rises is not a republic.

It's a machine. And that's what you're seeing right now. We're not living in a republic. We're living in a machine.

We -- I think we're staring at one of the largest unregulated political machines operating in the United States ever! Okay.

There have been a couple of groups that are doing sweeping investigations, two watchdog groups. One of them is NCRI and the Intelligent Advocacy Network.

And they have concluded now that the political arm of CAIR, he known as CAIR action, has been operating nationwide with no legal authority, to do the things it has been doing for years now.

They're not allowed to raise money. They've been raising money. Coordinating political campaigns.

Not allowed to do it. Endorsing candidates. Not allowed to do it, they're doing it. Mobilizing voters, shaping policy, functioning as a national advocacy network.

They don't have the legal authority to do any of it. And no one has said anything.

Now, according to the report, CAIR action doesn't just have a paperwork problem.

Investigators found, state by state, that it lacks the license, the registrations. The charitable authorizations, required to legally solicit money.

Excuse me. Or conduct political activity, in any of the 22 states in which it operates. Think of that!

I know how serious this is, because I remember what it took to get the license in each and every state, for Mercury One.

So we could operate. We could raise money. We could do things in those states. It's a lot of work. And if you don't do it, you go to jail. And they find out pretty quickly.

Okay?

22 states, they operate not one, zero legal authorization.

In Washington, DC, the city where CAIR action is incorporated, the department of licensing and consumer protection told investigators, they have no record of CAIR action ever obtaining the basic business license required to solicit funds or to operate.

Imagine how long would you last in business, especially if you were controversial.

How long would you remain in business, if you never had a business license?

You think somebody would figure that out?

In a sooner time than I don't know. A couple of decades!

This report means, that the organization if true, is engaging in unlicensed inner state solicitation.

It has exposed itself to allegations as serious as deceptive solicitation. Wire fraud and false statements to the IRS. These are big things.

And this is not political rhetoric.

Are these phrases written in black and white. In the law.

And by investigators. In California, one of CAIR's most active hubs. The state attorney general has said, the state attorney general of California has said, same pattern here!

The state of California, to say, yep. That's what's happening here.

CAIR action has never registered with California's charitable registry.

Never filed the required CT1 form. And has no authorization whatsoever to request donations. But they've been doing it in California anyway.

Fundraising, selling memberships. Issuing endorsements. Mobilizing voters. All of that has been done by CAIR action. There's no record of any license. Any permission, ever. Going to CAIR. From California. That's according to their attorney general.

Wow!

That's pretty remarkable, huh? How does that happen?

It's not just the coast. It is also happening to the Midwest, the South, the Mountain West. Every state hosting its own CAIR action fundraising page, complete with the donate now and become a member portal, despite no trace of the legal filings required to operate. That's bad!

Now, here's where the stakes rise.

Because CAIR action presents itself openly, as the political arm of CAIR National.

Investigators are now warning that any unauthorized fundraising or political activity.

Could become CAIR's national responsibility as well.

So, in other words, the parent, CAIR itself, might be held responsible.

Meaning, this is want just a rogue subdivision.

This could implicate the entire National Organization of CAIR.

Now, this is happening at the same time it's coming under national scrutiny. It's also Texas.

And I think Florida have designated the group a foreign terrorist organization. Members of Congress are now asking the IRS, the Treasury, the Department of Education to investigate all of its partnerships, all of its financing, all of its influence operations. I mean, I think they're going to be in trouble.

How long have we been saying this?

But every time, I have pointed out anything about CAIR, I have been called an Islamophobe, which shuts everything down. That is a word, developed by people like CAIR, to shut people down, so you'll never look into them.

So what happens next?

First of all, the reports have to hold up.

Regulators now have an obligation. Not a choice. An obligation to act!

State attorneys general in these 22 states, they might pursue fines, injunctions, criminal referrals.

All of them need to take action!

The IRS, needs to take action. Investigate tax exempt fraud. Treasury Department may review foreign influence or money flow violations.

Anything coming from overseas.

Oh, I can't imagine it. They're so buttoned up, right now.

DC regulators may determine whether CAIR actions entire fundraising operation has been unlawful from the beginning.

But here's the deeper question. And it's not bureaucratic. This one is constitutional.

Can the United States tolerate an influence machine, that operates outside of the legal framework, designed to prevent corruption, foreign leverage, and untraceable money?

If I hear one more time, talking about how AIPAC has just got to be investigated. Fine. Investigate.

I'm not against it.

Investigate.

Why aren't you saying anything about CAIR?

It feels like it might be a tool in the hands of a foreign operation.

Why aren't you saying anything about this?

Because here it is! It's not like, hey. I wonder why.

This is it! This is it! This isn't about silencing CAIR. Muslim Americans are -- that are full citizens, they have every right to speak. Every right to vote. Every right to organize. Participate in public life. No question! They can disagree with me, all they want.

But no organization. None! Not mine. Not yours. Not theirs. None. Should operate a nationwide political network, in the shadows and be immune from all of the guardrails that every other group must follow!

That's called a fourth branch of government!

That's how a fourth branch goes.

By the way, CAIR has placed all kinds of people in our Department of Homeland Security. Et cetera, et cetera. This organization has done it!

This is -- you cannot have a fourth branch of government.

They must abide by the laws.

No -- you can't have a branch that nobody elected. Nobody oversees.

Nobody holds accountable.

We talked about this yesterday, on yesterday's podcast. So what needs to happen is total transparency. CAIR action has to release its filings. Its donor structure. Its compliance records, if they exist. Equal enforcement under the law. I don't want them prosecuted in special ways.

Look, if AIPAC is doing the same thing. AIPAC should be prosecuted exactly the same way.
I want it equal. I want constitutional rule.

If conservatives, if Catholics, pro-Israel, environmental, Second Amendment groups, if they have to comply by the state law, so does CAIR action.

And if CAIR action has to do it, so do the Second Amendment groups and environmentalists, and pro-Israel and conservative groups. The law cannot be selective. It can't be!

I don't know how that's controversial in today's world. But somehow or another, they will find a way.

The Feds have to review all of this. If the report is accurate, the IRS and the Treasury have to determine whether false statements or unlicensed interstate solicitations have occurred.

Americans deserve to know what exactly, who is influencing our elections. Who is shaping our policy? Who is raising money in their state?

Especially physical the organization claims political authority, that it doesn't legally possess.

Because history will teach us one unchanging lesson. When a republic stops enforcing its own laws, someone else will always step in to fill that vacuum because power abhors a vacuum!

Unregulated, political power abhors a free people. So while it's about CAIR, it's not about Muslim Americans. It's not about religion.

As always, at least on this program, we try to make it about the rule of law.

One standard for everyone or no standard at all!

And that more than anything, will determine whether or not our institutions remain worthy of the freedom and responsibility that we have entrusted to them.

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

America is entering a year of historic upheaval from Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the spiritual shock that followed, to Trump’s tariff revolution, China’s rare-earth war, collapsing energy grids, AI displacement, and the looming fights over Taiwan and Venezuela. Glenn sits down with BlazeTV hosts ‪@deaceshow‬ and ‪@lizwheeler‬ along with his head researcher Jason Buttrill, to break down the biggest stories of 2025. Plus, they each give their most explosive prediction for 2026 that could shape our politics, economy, national security, and civil rights in ways Americans have never experienced before.

RADIO

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

For nearly a century, Washington DC has been ruled by an unelected “expert class” operating as an unconstitutional fourth branch of government — accountable to no one, removable by no president, and shielded from all consequences. Glenn breaks down why Trump’s firing of the Federal Trade Commissioner could finally dismantle the 1935 precedent that empowered technocrats, how Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed the Supreme Court’s embrace of expert rule, and why America cannot survive a government run by people who never face the voters and never pay for their failures.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So President Donald Trump fired the federal trade commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Federal Trade Commission is an administrative position. I mean, this is under -- the head of the federal trade commission is a cabinet member.

And if the justices uphold Trump's firing of Slaughter, that will overturn a precedent that was horrible, that was set in 1935. Remember, 1935, we're flirting with fascism. You know, everybody thinks. Because they haven't seen the horrors of fascism yet.

Everybody thinks fascism is neat, blah, blah. So what they do is they say that this is an independent person. And the president can't fire them. Because they're, you know, an independent agency.

Well, wait. That would make a fourth branch of government. Our Constitution is really clear.

There is no such thing as a fourth branch of government. Right?

So that's what they're deciding. Now, here is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is talking about how we really need to listen to the experts. Cut four.

VOICE: Because presidents have accepted that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency. That it is in the best interest of the American people to have certain kinds of issues, handled by experts. Who, and I think you -- in your colloquy, Justice Kagan, have identified the fact that these boards are not only experts, but they're also nonpartisan. So the -- the seats are actually distributed in such a way, that we are presumably eliminating political influence because we're trying to get to science and data and actual facts, related to how these decisions are made.

And so the real risk, I think, of allowing non- -- of allowing these kinds of decisions to be made by the president, of saying, everybody can just be removed when I come in, is that we will get away from those very important policy considerations.

VOICE: We will get away from US policy considerations, and it will create opportunities for all kinds of problems that Congress and prior presidents wanted to avoid, risks that flow inevitably, just given human nature, the realities of the world that we live in.

GLENN: Okay.

Now, remember, what she's saying here is, we have to have experts.

We have to have experts. We have to have experts that don't really answer to anybody. Okay?

They're appointed. And then they're just there. This from a, quote, judicial expert, who cannot define a woman, because she's not a doctor.
She's not a scientist.

She needs an expert to define a woman.
That's how insane her thinking is. Okay?

Now, I would just like to ask the Supreme Court, when you want things run by experts, do you mean things like the State Department, or the counsel of foreign relations, that have gotten us into these endless war wars for 100 years?

Because these are the things that Woodrow Wilson wanted. He wanted the country run by experts.

Okay. So is it like the Council of Foreign Relations, that keep getting us into these endless wars.

Or is it more like the Fed, that directs our fiscal policy, that has driven us into $38 trillion of at the time. We have all powerful banks. That strangely all belong to the fed. And endless bailouts for those banks. Are those the experts that you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the experts that are doctors, that gave the country sterilizations, lobotomies, transgender surgeries. You know, or should we listen to the experts, like the ones that are now speaking in Illinois, to get us death on demand like Canada has, with their MAID assisted suicide, which is now the third largest killer in Canada. MAID, assisted suicide, third largest killer in Canada. Experts are saying, we now need it here, and they're pushing for it in Illinois. Or should we listen to the experts? And I think many of them are the same experts strangely, that brought us COVID. Yeah. That was an expert thing. They were trying to protect us. Because they need to do this for our protection. So direct from the labs in China with the help of the American experts like Fauci. We almost put the world out.

Should we listen to those guys?

Or the experts that brought us masking, and Home Depot is absolutely safe. But Ace Hardware wants to kill grandma. Which are the experts that we want? That we want to make sure that we have in our lives? That they don't answer, or can't be fired by anybody. Because I'm pretty full up on the experts, myself. I don't know.

But you're right. These experts would keep the president in check, and they would keep Congress in check. And you in check!

And the Supreme Court, which would be really great. You know, and you know who else they would keep in check? The people.

So, wow, it seems like we would just be a nation run by experts, and our Constitution would be out the window, because that's a fourth branch!

And if you don't believe me, that, you know, these experts never pay a price. Can you name a single expert?

Give me a name of an expert, that gave us any of the things that I just told you about.

Give me the name. I mean, give me the name of one of them. Give me the name of one of them that went to jail. Give me the name of one expert that has been discredited.

You know, where your name will be mud in this town. Do you know where that came from?

Your name is going to be mud. It's not M-U-D. It's M-U-D-D, that comes from Dr. Samuel Mudd. Okay? He was a docks man. He was an expert. He was that set John Wilkes Booth' broken leg. He made crutches. He let him stay there for a while. He claimed he didn't know him, but he did know him.

In fact, one of the reasons they proved it.

Is because when he pulled the boots off -- when he pulled both of his boots off, right there, in the back, you couldn't have missed it. It said "John Wilkes Booth."

He's like, I have no idea who he was.

Yeah. Well, you knew him in advance. This was a predetermined outpost where he could stay. It's clear you could know him.

The guy was still discredited, we still use his name today. Your name will be mud in this town.

And we think that it's like dirt, mixed with water kind of mud. No, it's M-U-D-D, Dr. Mudd. The expert that was so discredited, went to jail, paid for his part of the assassination of -- of Lincoln.

Give me the name of one of the experts in the last 100 years, that has brought us any of the trials and the tribulations. The things that have almost brought us to our knees. Give me the name of one of them. Can't!

Because once an expert class, they don't answer to anyone. So they never go to jail.

Wow! Doesn't that sound familiar. People never going to jail!

There's a rant that's going around right now, that I did in 2020. And everybody is like, see. He's talking about Pam Bondi.

No, no. I got to play this for you, a little later on in the program. But I want to get to the experts and what the Constitution actually says about that. Because you don't need my opinion. What you need are the actual facts. So you can stand up and say, yeah. I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is an idiot. Okay?

And she's really not an expert on anything. Especially the Constitution. You need the facts, on what the Founders said. Because the Founders would be absolutely against what they did in 1935.

Because that just -- what does it do?

It just sets up a fourth branch of government.

RADIO

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

The biggest media merger in modern history is unfolding, and Glenn Beck warns it’s the most dangerous consolidation of power America has faced in decades. With six corporations already controlling 90% of the nation’s news and entertainment, a Warner-Netflix or Warner-Paramount megacorporation would create an unstoppable information cartel. Glenn exposes how “too big to fail” thinking is repeating itself, how global elites and “experts” are tightening their grip, and why handing our entire cultural narrative to a handful of companies is a direct threat to freedom. The hour is late — and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, it's never good when you consolidate power. It's never good.

And what is going on now, with this Netflix Warner Brothers paramount stuff, I don't care if Larry Ellison is a conservative or not.

No one should have that much power.

I did a show, gosh, four years ago. I don't even remember when I did it.

We looked it up. In the 1980s. 19 percent of American media was owned by over 50 companies.

Forty years later, 90 percent of the media is watched and controlled by six companies.

National Amusements, the Red Stone Family controls CBS, CMT, MTV, Nickelodeon, gaming and internet. Simon & Schuster Books. That's all one.

Disney, ABC, ESPN, History Channel, Marvel, Star Wars, video games and print.

TimeWarner controls CNN, Warner Brothers, HBO, Turner, video games, internet, and print media like TIME. Comcast, MSNBC, NBC.

CNBC, Telemundo, the Internet.

New Corp. Fox. National Geographic. Ton of others. Sony, with a ton of movies, music and more. The big six. They're valued at nearly $500 billion.

Now, this is something I put together five years ago. So I don't even know. This is probably not even valid even today.

And now we're talking about Netflix, Warner Brothers. Paramount, into all of these one giant corporation. It's wrong! It's wrong!

We can't keep putting all -- everything into the hands of just a few! It's what's killing us!

We've got to spread this around. We can't -- the government cannot okay mergers like this.

They're big enough he has

What happened -- what happened when the banks went under, or almost went under in '08. What did they say the problem was?

They said the banks are too big to fail.

Too big to fail.

Because they were providing all of the services, everybody needs. All the time. And there's only a handful of them.

So if they fall, then everything falls.

Right?

That was the problem. So what did we do to fix it?

We made them bigger!

We let them merge with other banks, and gobble up other things!

And started taking on the local banks.

And so now, your banks that were too big to fail. Are now even bigger. And their failure would be even worse!

What is wrong with us?

Seriously, we're not this stupid.

We're not this stupid.

I think we're just this comfortable.

We just think the experts have a plan. No. The experts don't have a plan.

Their plan is stupid. Their plan is to make it bigger.

Every time it fails. Make it bigger. Push it up.

Make it more global.

No. Haven't you seen what the entire world is like?

The entire world is over-leveraged. The entire world is on the edge.

The entire world is being redesigned.
So what do we do? We don't allow them to make things bigger! We need to start taking more individual and local control of things. They're making it bigger. Which will make the problem bigger. And make the problem so big, you won't be able to do anything about it, because all the experts. All of the heads. They'll all -- there will be six of them. And they will all be sitting in one room.

And they will all be making the instigations. And with them, making those decisions will be all the heads of all the countries around the world, that you're not going to have a say in any of that. They're already trying to do it with the WEF.

But if -- if the Supreme Court says, no, experts matter. And the president can't fire them. You will not have any control over anything!

We're at this place, where we can back out. We can turn around.

We can do it.

It's not too late. But the hour is growing very late.

I don't know about you, I don't like being this.

Up to the edge, you know what I mean?

I would rather have lots of breathing room, between me and the edge of the cliff.

But we don't have that anymore.

Everything has to be done right.

And we have to pay attention.

And the worst thing we can do is make things bigger.

Dream big, think small.

Glenn's Show Prep

Weird Groupthink: Tribal Instinct Explains Milo Yiannopoulos

Has THIS Islamist organization BROKEN state laws for YEARS?!

Transcript

Glenn Beck WARNS Democrats Will Return with VENGEANCE in 2026 | Glenn TV | Ep 473

Trump Just SHATTERED the “Expert Class” - And the Deep State is in Total Panic

Transcript

EXPLAINED: Why the Warner-Netflix/Paramount Merger is DANGEROUS for All of Us

Transcript