BLOG

'The Big Lie': Dinesh D'Souza Drops Some Knowledge on Neo-Nazi Roots of the American Left

The Nazi movement had deep ties to American liberals, author and activist Dinesh D’Souza said on radio Tuesday.

D’Souza explored the connections between the American left and the rise of Nazism in his new book, “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.” In the book, D’Souza argued that conservatives – who are often accused of fascism – are not fascists, and that calling Republicans and people like President Donald Trump “fascists” is actually the left’s big lie.

On Tuesday’s show, D’Souza detailed an example of the ties between American progressives and the Nazi movement that went all the way up to Hitler. He described how Madison Grant, an American eugenicist and conservationist, was excited about getting a letter from Hitler praising his work.

“This is a really good example of how the American progressives were aware that they were shaping the Nazi sterilization program [and] also the euthanasian program,” D’Souza said. “And they were very proud of it.”

GLENN: Hmm. A -- a friend of ours who has gone to jail for his opinion and so much more, he's not going to have any difficulty with his new book, called The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. Dinesh D'Souza is here. And we begin, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Dinesh. How are you?

DINESH: Good to be on.

GLENN: Are you ready for the pushback that you're going to get on this book?

DINESH: Well, I'm excited about the book. Because I -- you know, a lot of my books, I know what I'm going to say when I start out. And I have an argument. And I develop the evidence. I lay it out.

So, for example, in the Hillary book, Hillary's America, I -- I knew that there was a long complicity of the Democratic Party with racism. It was just a matter of documenting it, laying it out.

GLENN: Sure.

DINESH: Here, with this book -- of course, I had read a few things about it, Jonah Goldberg's liberal fascism.

I noticed that there was sort of eerie similarities between things going on, on both sides of the Atlantic. It's really interesting to compare, for example, look at the Ku Klux Klan in America and then look at the Nazi Brownshirts. Right?

They both grow at about the same time. They both get 3 to 5 million members. In both groups, you have people who love to wear ridiculous costumes, love to do songs and salutes, love to do nightly raids, love to humiliate people, are into racial terrorism.

In both cases, they're the wing of a political party. In one case, the Democratic Party, the Klan. In the other case, the Nazi party.

So I thought, this is going to be very interesting, to develop these parallels. But what I didn't realize was that there actually was intimate relations between the left in this country and the Democrats and the fascists in Italy and the Nazis and Germany. And all of this has been covered up.

GLENN: Yeah. The connections between the early American progressive movement -- I mean, I have letters and documentation myself from the -- I think it's the human betterment society in California. From the Germans saying, "Thank you for coming up. You have woken a country of 60 million people to this eugenics project. And Hitler is going to get fully behind this." I mean, it -- they were deeply tied into what became the Holocaust. And it's all buried.

DINESH: And proud of their associations.

GLENN: Yes, very proud.

DINESH: I'm kind of amused about, there's this guy Madison Grant, who was a progressive, head of the New York zoological society.

GLENN: Yeah.

DINESH: Big advocate of eugenics. And he gets a letter from Hitler. He's super excited. So he goes to this other progressive icon, and he goes, "Hey, check out my letter from Hitler."

And that guy goes, "Wait right here." Goes to his library. Produces his letter from Hitler. So this is a really good example of how the American progressives were aware that they were shaping the Nazi sterilization program, but also the euthanasia program.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

DINESH: And they were very proud of it.

GLENN: I posted a Facebook post maybe two years ago. And it was the -- the national Socialist Party platform in the '20s. And it seemed very familiar to me.

You talk about a speech that Hitler gave in '27 where he said, "We're all socialists. We are the enemies of today's capitalist system of exploitation. And we're determined to destroy this system under all conditions." They have 25-point program. The nationalization of large corporations, trusts, government control of banking and credit. The seizure of land without compensation if it was for public use. The splitting of large landholdings into smaller units. Confiscation of war profits. Prosecution of bankers and other lenders on grounds of usury. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. Profit-sharing for workers and all large companies. Broader pension system, paying higher benefits. And universal free health care and universal free education.

DINESH: If you read that platform at a Democratic National Convention, you would get thunderous applause. And I think that's true of Mussolini's speeches, for example.

Fascism and Naziism were firmly on the left. And in one of the chapters, I trace the genesis of fascism. It arose out of a -- what's called the crisis of Marxism. Marx had made all these predictions that communist revolution was coming to Germany, was coming to England.

And when it didn't happen, the really smart socialists sat around. They scratched their heads, and they said, "We've got to -- we've got to revise Marx. We see he got something fundamentally wrong."

And in the 20th century, out of that crisis of Marxism come two new things: One, Leninist Bolshevism. And the other, Mussolini's fascism. They both are spin-offs from socialism. They are on the same side of the aisle. And because of World War II, and because Hitler was on one side, the Soviets were on the other, this has made it very easy for progressives to pretend that if communism is on the left, fascism must be on the right. But this misses, of course, the fact that sister ideologies do go to war.

GLENN: They're -- they're relatively the same. One is about workers of the world, and one is about workers of the nation uniting. It's pretty much nationalism versus world domination under a grand unifying theory, of we're all in this one together. But it's the same awful stew. Is it not?

DINESH: It absolutely is. And even that distinction is blurred because although Lenin talked about international socialism, as soon as Stalin came in, he said mother Russia. Socialism in one country. So if you think about it, Stalin was a nationalist socialist just like Hitler.

GLENN: So help me out on -- you've seen what's going on with Google.

DINESH: Absolutely.

GLENN: This is not going to lead anywhere good. And I -- I can't believe that those people who have said they've been kept in a closet for their viewpoint or their sexuality or whatever, their whole life, are now shoving people into closets and -- and silencing people. I don't understand how the average person, the average Democrat isn't starting to become afraid of what they're unleashing in universities and in -- in the silencing of those who can make a -- a reasonable, rational, and scientific argument.

DINESH: So this really is the fascist mindset. And I say this because typically if we look around America now, we would think the best example of fascism is these Antifa guys dressed in masks, scaring weapons, bike locks, and bats. They're there to threaten, to intimidate, to beat people up. So they look a lot like Mussolini's Blackshirts from the '20s, but I think there's a deeper fascism that's a much bigger problem than the guys on the street at Berkeley. And that is the fascism of the institutions.

So the Nazis had a term called Gleichschaltung, which basically means coordination. But their idea was, we have a society. Everybody has got to march in line, in lockstep. They've got to be in sync with Nazi ideology. And if they fall out, we have to pressure them. We have to cajole them. We have to force them.

And this Gleichschaltung is now in America. It's on the left. It's called political correctness. But I don't just mean you use the wrong word. I'm talking about the way in which Hollywood, the media, academia, and now corporations like Google, if you fall athwart the ideology, they will ruin you, they'll fire you, they will humiliate you, they'll make you into a pariah. This kind of thing is very scary. And it has a deep parallel with what was going on with Europe in the middle of the century.

GLENN: You know I have deep respect for you, right?

DINESH: Right.

PAT: Uh-oh.

STU: That's what he says to me usually when he insults me.

PAT: Look out.

GLENN: I'm not going to insult you.

Those on the right who do not agree with my point of view of Donald Trump have done all of those things that you have described. In fact, they have been as vicious, in some ways more vicious than the -- the Soros group that went after me on the left. There is a -- there is a love in this country right now of winning at all costs and destroying anyone who stands against you that is truly frightening.

DINESH: You know, I have to disagree with that. I was thinking the other day that when I came to America in the late '70s -- I'm a young Reaganite from my college days.

American politics was a gentleman's quarrel. And one could envision Reagan and "Tip" O'Neill having it out, but then you could see them having a beer afterward. And then at the end of the day, there was a shared belief that, you know, "Tip" O'Neill, you know, he loved America. And we all want America to be prosperous. We want America to be strong. We want America to be the world's leader.

We might disagree about how to share the spoils. How America prosperity should be distributed. But it's a debate about means, not about ends. And it just occurred to me how -- how much all of that has broken down.

Now, I blame the left. Because I think that the breakdown started with Obama. And by that, I mean the deploying of the government against your critics. The willingness to sort of treat your critic, not just as a political adversary, but as a real enemy, somebody you would like to see put out of business altogether.

And I think that it is that dysfunctional atmosphere that produced Trump. In other words, the ordinary Republican goes, we appointed all these nice guys, one after the other. There was Bob Dole, self-deprecating and witty. There was John McCain, war hero. There was the super squeaky clean-cut Romney. And yet all these guys began to helplessly flail in the wind as they were converted into Lucifer by the other side. All right. Enough of all that. We're going to get a real tough guy, and he may not be all that straight around the edges, but he can throw a punch and he can take a punch. We've got to fight like those guys. It is this kind of bare-knuckled atmosphere that we're in now.

GLENN: And I don't think it is -- to say that -- I mean, you know where I stand on Obama. But to say that it was Obama. I mean, today is the anniversary of the Nixon resignation. Enemy's list. Nixon -- and I think this is the real problem in America: We keep looking at left and right, which is bogus in America, the way it is -- you know, they've made the left and right in America to be the European left and right. And that is not true.

Right is small government, almost anarchy. And left is total government, be it fascism, totalitarianism, whatever. It's -- those are our two rights -- left and right in America.

But it has become this Democratic and Republican thing, when Richard Nixon was a gigantic progressive. It's progressivism in the early 20th century that was -- was fueling much of what was happening in Germany. And teaching -- and they were teaching us in the same way.

I mean, it was a cozy get-together. And when you have progressivism not recognized in both parties on both sides as people who just want control of other people, that's where we're having this battle because we can point to each other and say, "Well, you did this. Yeah, because my side has that gene in it too."

DINESH: Absolutely.

Well, progressivism was in both parties, even at the beginning.

Now, the Republican version of it was softer than the Democratic version. So, for example, Teddy Roosevelt, although he used some Darwinist rhetoric about survival of the fittest, was thinking mainly about foreign policy. And if you talked to him about something like forced sterilization, I think he would -- family man that he was, he would blanch a little bit --

GLENN: I will get you -- upstairs, I have letters from him that will horrify you on sterilization and the selecting of -- we're going to look at humans, I think the quote is, like the dumbest farmers. Even on farms, we don't let our best stock breed with our worst stock. I mean, he was pretty clear on some of that spooky stuff.

DINESH: Yeah, I have read some things that have made my eyebrows go up.

GLENN: Yeah.

DINESH: But this all took such a bad turn in the '20s and '30s in Europe. One of the discoveries in the book that really startled me was the degree to which -- when the Nazis got together to write the Nuremberg laws. And they were all sitting around the table. All these top guys. Head of the Justice Department, and so on.

GLENN: Explain for people who don't know what the Nuremberg laws.

DINESH: So the Nuremberg laws were the laws that made Jews into second-class citizens. They involved segregation of Jews into ghettos. State-sponsored discrimination. Keeping the Jews out of certain professions. And later, they were modified for confiscation of Jewish property and so on. So the Nazis go -- they -- one of the Nazi meetings we have transcripts of.

Why? Because the Nazis go, we are the first people in the world to be creating a racist state. It's fantastic. So watch us do it. And one of the guys who was there had studied in the United States.

And he goes, time-out, guys. Sorry to interrupt the party, but a racial state has already been created by the Democratic Party in America. We're not the first people to this picnic. They've already done it.

And all the questions were exploring. Intermarriage between groups, segregation, discrimination. They've been there for years. So the Nazis then immediately consulted the Democratic laws.

Let's remember, every segregation law in the South, passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, enforced by Democratic officials.

So the Nazis take a look at this, and they go, fantastic. Let's just cross out the word "black," write in the word "Jew," and we're off at the races.

Now, to me, the most sort of poignantly pungent aspect of this debate is, at one point, the Nazis begin to debate, who is a Jew? Because there's a lot of intermarriage that's been going on since the Middle Ages. And the Nazis are not sure if you can classify someone as a Jew, who is only, let's say, half Jewish.

Again, the Nazi who had studied in America, I think his name was Cregor, he goes, problem-solved. In America, they have one drop rule. Basically, if you have any black, any visible blackness in you, you're black. And this is where the whole story gets kind of crushing. The Nazis look at each other and they go, "That's too much." Basically they're saying, the Democrats are too racist for us. We can't go with the one drop rule. And, in fact, the Nuremberg laws, as they were written, you need three Jewish grandparents to count as Jewish. So the Nazis, you may say, took a softer line than the Democratic Party on the question of racial identity.

GLENN: The name of the book is The Big Lie. Dinesh D'Souza. More in a second.

GLENN: With Dinesh D'Souza, his book is called The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

You say really controversial things in here that I know the -- the research behind it is absolutely solid. I have done the research. I have many of the letters that you are talking about in here.

In one of the chapters, you talk about how FDR was America's first fascist dictator. And people find so -- they find that so offensive. But they -- they are not, again, looking back at the time. At the time, the progressives and many Americans -- this is before it had been all discredited, thought that that's what a big state -- that the big state was the scientific way to go.

DINESH: It's very difficult for us in the aftermath of World War II, in an era where fascism and Naziism have been completely stained by the order of the Holocaust, it's very hard for us to think why anyone would have been attracted to those ideologies. So in order to understand this, it's almost like you've got to put some historical -- you better get in a time machine and go before those things happened and see what appealed about fascism. So the fascists talked about society as an organism. And each individual is a cell. Your life has no value by itself. But like any cell, your value is what you contribute to the whole.

GLENN: Pick it right back up with Dinesh D'Souza, The Big Lie, when we come back.

(OUT AT 10:31AM)

GLENN: Dinesh D'Souza is here. The Big Lie is the book: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

He was explaining how FDR was America's first fascist dictator. And I know that sounds horrible to say now. But we have to look at history as it is at the time. They thought fascism and totalitarianism, big state was the future. They thought it was the new scientific progressive way. And all of this other stuff, where, you know, people got together in their towns -- it was just outdated and old and antiquated and wouldn't work.

DINESH: Socialism, fascism, and progressivism, these are the three great collectivist movements of the last century. It was an era in which words like "dictator" were positive because a dictator was somebody who gave instruction and got things done.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

DINESH: Totalitarianism, for Mussolini, was a good word. Mussolini's point is, you can't have a fragmented society. We need to have a totalitarian society, in which everything is operating toward a singular purpose.

GLENN: It's Nebuchadnezzar. I mean, it's as old as history itself. Nebuchadnezzar: Let's make bricks. If we all make bricks, if we all are the same and we're working toward one goal, we'll be able to build a tower to reach heaven. It's the same thing, and it never works.

DINESH: And the progressives, like the fascists, saw democracy as a mechanism to achieve power, but not something to take too seriously.

I mean, when FDR's New Deal schemes were being blocked by the Supreme Court, what does FDR do? He basically goes, let's stack the court. Let me appoint six new justices, so I essentially have created a majority. And the only reason he didn't do it is the court essentially buckled in and gave into him.

Now, the progressives today in the textbooks, they wittingly describe this as the switch in time that saved nine. They're basically talking about the trampling of democratic institutions as some kind of a joke. But that's how FDR treated it. And so there's a fascist streak. I wouldn't say that FDR became a full-fledged fascist dictator. But there was a fascist streak in him that was exactly why Mussolini and even Hitler thought that he was like them.

GLENN: So you have to read a book -- they're hard to find. But I think I actually have an extra copy. And when you do find them, sometimes this section of the book is taken out. But it was written by Stewart chase, who you know named the New Deal. And he was instrumental in the shaping of the -- of the totalitarian view of the government.

So he -- he writes a book called The Road On Which We're Traveling. And it's after -- it's just at the end of the war, when we know we're going to win. And so he says, so after the war, these things are going to happen.

It's towards the end of the book. And he says, we now know that fascism and totalitarianism are discredited. So I don't know what we're going to call this. But we'll, for our purposes here, just call it System X. And he says, the United States now, through the last 20 years, has put so much in, that you will see System X, which is totalitarianism and fascism. He just couldn't bring himself to call it that. But he explains how it has been grown and put in, under the guise of freedom.

DINESH: Well, interestingly, if you think about the Democrats today and ask this question: Are there economic policies -- and I'm thinking here, not just Obama and Hillary. But let's say Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, are their economic policies more socialist in the Marxist sense, or are they more fascist? Now, if you look up fascism, it says -- the definition is really clear: State-run capitalism.

If we think of Obamacare, we have private corporations. We have private hospitals. We have private insurance companies. But the government is directing them. The government is setting prices. Deciding on reimbursements. Deciding on who gets coverage and for what.

GLENN: It is what they have said: China is the new model, which is state-run capitalism anyways.

DINESH: And then under Obama, state-run control of banks, insurance -- investment companies, the energy sector, increasingly higher education.

So this is -- you know, the old socialists would go and nationalize it all. The socialists would take over the energy industry, and the government would go take out oil in Midland, Texas. But we don't do that.

Our economic policies that the Democrats advocate are more classically fascist. You go to Midland, Texas. You drill the oil out. You put it in the barrel and label it, and then we will saunter in, kind of take control of it, and tell you what to do with that wealth.

GLENN: So reading your book, there's very little in there that isn't well documented. And you're making a strong case.

However, we're at a place now to where nobody even knows what fascism is. Nobody even knows what communism is. It's just a smear that both sides use. You're making an intellectual case and saying, "This is what it is. And this is what the roots are here in America." You can agree or disagree. But we're not going to have that conversation. We're not going to have a conversation of, you bring your facts to the table. I'll bring other facts to the table. And we'll see which ones really hold up in the test of time and scrutiny. How do we -- how do you share facts like this, without jamming fingers into the other person's chest and -- and being able to have a dialogue?

If we don't start -- if we don't come to a place to where Martin Luther King was, where he said, stop trying to win, you've got to reconcile. If we can't come to the reconciliation of just ourselves with the historic truth, we're doomed.

DINESH: No, I agree completely that that is the goal. In other words, kings, beloved community, that's where we're trying to go.

Here's the problem: That for a generation, for example, as long as the left felt that they could play the race card with impunity, they were not going to stop. As long as Republicans were on the defensive, "No, we're not racist," as long as Ken Mehlman of the RNC was running around apologizing for the Republican Party's racist history at black churches, the Democrats, they just had us where they wanted us. The moment we hit back hard and said in effect, "Actually, you're blaming us for the stuff that you did --

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: -- and you haven't apologized for it," that's when you now have a pause in the race debate. And it's precisely the counterstrike that's produced that.

GLENN: So I agree with you. Because I think there's -- when I say reconciliation, don't misconstrue Martin Luther King for a weakling. He was a strong defender of the truth and where he was going. So I'm not by any stretch saying, "We don't make these points." We must use history as our guide and be able to expose this.

But how do we now get this to the ears of people who are so wrapped up in the game, that it's just not going to make a difference.

DINESH: Well, if you ask me what I'm trying to do with this book, I'm sort of trying to take away the fascism card in kind of the same way I tried to take away the race card from the left. I'm trying to blunt the force of it.

I'm not using the words "Nazi" and "fascist" as a verbal javelin. Because, first of all, I'm not saying -- and I don't even think the left is saying -- when they say Trump is a fascist, they don't mean that Trump is Hitler, circa 1945. Trump hasn't started a World War. He hasn't gassed 6 million Jews.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

DINESH: They're saying Trump is Hitler, circa 1933. He's a demagogue, who just came into power, promising these dreams about greatness.

GLENN: Yeah.

DINESH: So I'm saying, all right. The way to take away the kind of smear campaign is to -- is to take a pause and dive into the meaning of these terms, really show that the left is the party of fascism. And I'm hoping that, in the same way, it will strip the fascist card of its kind of power to shut down debate. And not just shut down debate. The left is using the charge of fascism to justify all kinds of behavior that would never otherwise be condoned.

I mean, for example, we said about Obama, A, we're not going to show up at his inauguration. B, we're going to disrupt it. C, we're going to get him on obstruction of justice, even if there was no underlying crime. People would be apoplectic. They would think -- they would think we had lost our minds. But the left goes, of course, we do all this stuff. But we're doing it because we're fighting Hitler by the '30s. We're using by any means necessary.

GLENN: But do you believe that -- because I think this is actually a losing strategy. Because I do believe that I know Democrats who say, you know, they were out marching against the guy on the first weekend. We have absolutely no credibility. Would you just shut up. And when something is real, deal with it.

I think both sides, excusing anything and being offended by everything, those are both losing strategies in the end. Do you agree with that or not?

DINESH: I do agree with that. I mean, I do agree with that. The other problem I think is that the intellectual quality of our public debate has really dropped.

GLENN: There is an intellectual --

DINESH: I mean, I think back when I was 22, I looked up to people like Milton Friedman, Solzhenitsyn, Friedrich Hayek, even William F. Buckley. Not only their -- their rhetorical excellence and philosophical range, but their style. There was a kind of elegance to them that seems to have diminished, if not disappeared, from public life.

And there is no -- you know, the other problem is, you know, for example, ever since the election, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, they've been bloviating about fascism almost non-stop. So now I have a book. And I said to them, okay. Guys, let's have it out. Let's see if fascism really belongs on the right or the left.

Dead silence, you know. Not a word.

GLENN: They won't put you on.

DINESH: They won't put me on. Because I think they're scared. I think they know that they don't know what they're talking about, and they know that the moment --

GLENN: Well, it's all footnoted. You have all the sources in the back. I mean, you can disagree with conclusions that you might make. But facts are facts. Facts are facts.

DINESH: That's absolutely true. When you -- when you look at the -- the actual attributions by Hitler, "I'm getting this idea from the Jacksonian Democrats of the 19th century, and they're the ones who threw the Indians off their land, they displaced them, they took over their land, they enslaved the ones that remained. I'm going to do that in Poland. In the Slavic countries in central Europe, in Russia. I'm going to settle it with German families." I mean, this is out of the mouth of Hitler, you might say. And very hard to deny. Either he said it or he didn't. But it's right there in Mein Kampf.

STU: We were talking in the break about similarities of the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the Brownshirts and how they rose to power at the same time. The same strength, really. The same types of tactics.

Obviously, in America, so far, thankfully, we've been able to avoid the worst parts of what happened out of those movements. Even though they were terrible here, they never rose to those levels. Was it the Constitution? Is it the Founders that -- that prevented that rise of those terrible elements in our country? What was the difference?

DINESH: Well, first of all, I don't think you can say that we were spared those horrors.

GLENN: No, we weren't.

DINESH: Because if you think about it, number one, the racist regime of the Nazis lasted for 12 years. 1933 to 1945. The racist regime that the Democrats established lasted for over 100 years, from I would say the 1820s until at least the 1950s and in both cases, you had racial terrorism, the Klan, the Brownshirts, that was then replaced by systematic laws that inferior-ized a whole group. So even Hitler talked about -- he said -- Hitler shut down the Brownshirts. He goes, "This is emotional anti-Semitism."

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: He goes, the Nuremberg laws and the subsequent laws, those are, what he called, "rational anti-Semitism." The state will treat you as the inferior creature you are. We don't need to have hooligans beat you up on the street.

And the Democratic South did exactly the same thing. The ruling power said, we don't need the Klan running around burning people's homes. We will just establish two separate societies: White people on top, black people at the bottom. They won't associate a whole lot with each other. Two separate societies inside of one.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Dinesh D'Souza. The name of the book is The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. The Big Lie by Dinesh D'Souza. Always good to have you. Thanks, Dinesh.

DINESH: A real pleasure.

RADIO

This AI could change EVERYTHING by next year

With Elon Musk’s announcement of Grok 4, humanity is closer than ever before to creating AGI – artificial general intelligence – which would change everything. Glenn Beck breaks down what’s coming in the next year with AI, which even Elon Musk called “terrifying.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me tell you the biggest story of the day.

And I think it is the biggest story possibly of all mankind, as of today.

It's going to change rapidly.

I don't know if anybody -- did either of you guys watch the Elon Musk thing last night?

STU: No, I did watch a few minutes of it.

GLENN: Okay. Did you, Jason?

JASON: No. I sure didn't.

GLENN: Okay. So the xAI team was there to unveil Grok 4. This is the latest intelligence, and let me be very, very clear.

Last night was not your typical tech launch. This is a moment that demands everyone's full attention.

We are now at the crossroads, where promise and peril are going to collide. Okay?

I have explained to you, for years, AGI.
AI. AGI. And ASI. Narrow intelligence is what we've always had.

General intelligence is the next step. And that is, it's better that man, one -- one, you know, like Grok. Can do everything. That you can do.

Better that you can do.

Okay?

And then there's super intelligence. ASI.

Artificial super intelligence.

That's when things get really, really creepy.

When you hit AGI, the road to ASI could be overnight.

Okay?

We need to understand what's at stake here. Because Grok four brought us closer to that second stage, than ever before.

Grok four is a powerhouse. They demonstrated it last night.

It surpasses the expertise of Ph.D.-level sailors in all fields.

It can get 100 percent on any -- any test for any field, mathematics, physics. Engineering.

You name it.

This is not a search engine.

This is a system that tackles problems, so intricate, they -- they go beyond our existing knowledge base.

Okay?

Let's say there is -- let's say, we have a fusion reactor. And the magnetic containment system goes down. I don't even know what I'm talking about at this point.

But it goes down.

And the top minds all on earth are like, I don't know what to do. Grok 4 can step in, model the physics, design new material, stabilize the system, and avert catastrophe. And it can do it about that fast. Now, this is the capability, that Musk says is just around the corner.

Mark my words. You know, how many -- how many years did I say, between 2027 and 2030, we would start to see this?

STU: Oh, a million times.

That was always --

GLENN: For years. Right? Yeah, always the window.

And everybody, even Ray Kurzweil said, oh, that's way too optimistic. We may be 2050.

And then people started going, 2040, 2030.

Grok shows us 2026 or 2027 is when we're going to hit it. This is the last year, that we have, before things get really weird.

Okay?

Last night, Elon Musk is touting this -- this AI.

And all of the solutions.

And then he says.

Hmm. Probably three times.

Something like this.

And I'm quoting. This is one of them.

It's somewhat unnerving to have created intelligence that's greater than our own.

He then goes on to call it terrifying, twice.

Now, this is a man who has launched rockets, you know, into orbit.

Going to Mars.

And he says, twice!

You know, after he sees the results of it. He says, you know, it's really -- in a way, quite terrifying to see what it's doing.

But we just have to make sure that it remains good!

Oh, okay.

All right. Sure.

Now, the key point in the announcement was the mention of ARC-AGI.

I had never heard of ARC-AGI. I had no idea what it was. But I noticed AGI. And I went, uh-oh. That sounds important. So this is the gold standard. The bench mark testing for artificial general intelligence.

Okay.

As I've said before, AGI. Artificial General Intelligence is a machine that matches all human cognition, across all domains.

Reasoning, creativity.

Problem solving. Not just specialized tasks like playing Go or analyzing x-rays. Everything. For instance, Musk said by mid-next year to the latest end of next year, it will be able to create a full length movie, just from a text prompt.
And do it all at once!

So, in other words, it will say, create a movie, and you just explain the Godfather.

It will do the casting. It will do the writing. It will do the filming, if you will. It will -- score the music, and it will happen that fast.

Almost in realtime. We are nowhere near the computational power now, to do that separately.

But this will do it all at once. It will make a movie with all of it, simultaneously.

So the arc AGI system is the benchmark on how close we are to AGI. Remember, scary things happen at AGI.

Terrifying things happen at ASI. ASI could be a matter of hours, or days after we hit AGI.

Grok 4 scored 16.2 percent on the ARC-AGI scale.

Why is that important? You're like, well, only 16 percent away.

Because last time, it barely broke 8 percent.

And that -- they took that test, last time with Grok three.

And it took us forever to get to 8 percent.

Now, what is it? A year later.

We're at 16 percent. Remember, these things are not linear. The next time, we could be at 32, we might be at 64.

We are on the verge. This is the last year of -- I can't believe I'm saying this. Of normalcy. Okay?

This year is -- we're going to look back at this year, probably two years ago, gosh, remember the good old days, when everything was normal.

And you could understand everything.

This is how close we are!

Everything you and I talked about last night, Stu, about what we're doing in January, make -- put -- does it make it even more critical that that happens like, oh, I don't know.

Right now.

STU: Yeah. For sure.

GLENN: You are going to need to know your values, your ethics, your rights.

You are going to need to know absolutely everything.

Now, Grok 4 is not true AGI yet.

It lacks the full autonomy and the generalized reasoning of a human mind. But it is the closest that we've come.

It's a system that can adapt, innovate, at a level that outpaces specialized AIs by a wide margin.

This is a milestone. This is not a destination, but it's something that should jolt everybody awake. So here's what's coming over the next six months. By December 2025, that's this Christmas!

December 2025, he believes, Musk, that Grok 4, will drive breakthroughs in material sciences.

So, in other words, imagine a new -- brand-new alloy, that is lighter than aluminum. Stronger than steel.

And it revolutionizes aerospace and everything else, or a drug that halts Alzheimer's progression, tailored to a person's DNA.

Grok will drive breakthroughs through material science. So brand-new materials that nobody has ever thought of.

Pharmaceuticals that we never thought could be made.

And chemical engineering, putting together chemicals that no man has ever thought.

That's going for happen by December.

Imagine a chemical compound that makes carbon capture, economically viable. The climate change stuff, that's over.

It will be over.

Because this will solve that! These are not fantasies.

This is Grok 4.

Musk said something that he never thought. He believes that within the next year, by 2027, Grok 4 will uncover new physical laws.

So that will rewrite the understanding -- our understanding of the entire universe.

That there will come -- like there's gravity. Hey, you know what, there's another law here that you never thought of. Wait. What?

That, he says, will come by 2027. This is going to accelerate human discovery, at an unprecedented scale.

I told you, at some point. I said, by 2030. It might be a little earlier than that.

Things will be happening at such a fast rate, you won't be able to keep up with them.

And it will accelerate to the point to where you won't even understand what all of this means.

Or what the ramifications are!

Are you there yet?

In six months, Grok 4 could evolve into a system, that dwarfs human expertise in economics, defense, all of it.

Now, again, it's a bit terrifying to quote Elon Musk. Why?

Because we don't know, what else comes with this.

This is like an alien life form.

We have no idea, what to predict. What it will be capable of.

How it will view us, when we are ants, to its intellect.

Okay?

It is a tool, but it is also Pandora's box.

If Grok 4 is the biggest step towards AGI.

And maybe one of the last steps to AGI.

My feeling is: What I've been saying forever.

2027 to 2030, I'm leaning more toward the 2027 now.

Because of this announcement last night.

We are on the verge of AGI.

And everything in human existence changing overnight.

And as Musk said himself, two times, it's terrifying!

We should act like it is terrifying.

Or risk losing the control of the future, that we're all trying to build. That's the biggest story of the day.

I think! In my opinion.

RADIO

Bill O’Reilly’s SOLUTION to the DOJ’s Epstein Files fallout

Bill O'Reilly joins Glenn Beck with his plan for how the Trump administration can fix the Epstein Files fallout "overnight." Plus, he explains why he believes there's only one way that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan get indicted by a grand jury.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Bill O'Reilly.

Welcome to the program, sir! How are you?

BILL: Welcome. (inaudible)

And right off the bat, I have to correct you.

GLENN: Yeah. You're not alive. What know.

BILL: I mean, you know -- you don't know that?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. No. I -- I thought you were dead. Anyway --

BILL: You were dead to me, oh!
(laughter)
I --

GLENN: I get it.

BILL: That's just another brick in your wall, Beck.
(laughter)

GLENN: It's good to talk to you, Bill.

Tell me -- you had a conversation with -- with President Trump, what, a couple of months ago, and I talked about --

BILL: Yeah. St. Patrick's Day, he invited me to sit on a cabinet meeting, which he does sometimes.

And he said, look, we've got files, Kennedy, King, Epstein -- what do you think? And I said, well, first Kennedy you've got to put out pretty much everything, which he did. King, he didn't. I don't know why. Because that's important too.

And then on Epstein I said, you have to be careful here, because this is now being used in political precincts. Both sides want to destroy anybody that was associated with Epstein. And the problem is that a federal investigation. They don't make a determination whether you had a -- what kind of relationship you had with Epstein. They just said, so-and-so had lunch with him.

Or maybe so-and-so had -- saw him at a party. And I said, any name of a human being associated with Epstein, in any way, that person is going to be destroyed. Because you know, the press is not going to put anything into context.

So I said, but it's very important that the Justice Department tell the folks what they know.

And you don't have to get specific with anything.

But you have to say, this is the information that we've compiled. And that's not hard.

And I don't know why the Trump administration is not doing that.

GLENN: Wow!

So, first of all, it's your fault, that we're not getting any names. We learned a lot here.

BILL: Probably my fault, but the president --

GLENN: You know what, I think you're right. I don't want all the names of the people. I want to know --

BILL: And I don't either.

GLENN: Right! I want to know the Justice Department has sorted through the things, and then have gone through. And said, this is criminal. This is not. These people are being indicted, et cetera, et cetera. But to come out and say, there is nothing there, I mean, it's -- it's at least --

BILL: It's ridiculous.

GLENN: It's mass incompetence, at least from Pam Bondi. How could she come out and say, it's all sitting on my desk?

And then when she doesn't release it, she says, well, that's because the FBI in New York is thwarting this process. There are people up there, that are trying to keep this from me.

And then she makes no arrests on that. We never hear about that again.

And then now all of a sudden, there's nothing to see.

BILL: Well, listen, Pam Bondi does not make decisions on her own.

No cabinet member does.

All the decisions come out of the West Wing.

So what I believed happened was, Trump was so obsessed with the big bill, with Iran, with Putin, with China.

That this -- they didn't even think about this. Okay?

GLENN: I believe that.

BILL: And it slowly began to unravel. And then I caught it by surprise.

But this is the easiest fix. Somewhere so easy.

BILL: So if I'm in charge, and that would be a great thing for everyone, except you, Beck -- but every other American, if I were in charge, tremendous. You would be in Botswana. Right.

GLENN: Right. Oh, I know.

Yeah. Yeah. I would be the ambassador of the white farmers in -- in South Africa if it were up to you. I know. I know.

BILL: No. You would be wandering around going, I am Glenn Beck. And they would go, who? That's what you'd be doing.

GLENN: That's every day.

BILL: So this could happen within the hour. Pam Bondi announces a press conference for tomorrow.

At that press conference, sitting next to her, is Merrick Garland, everyone.

You had this stuff for four years! Now, I understand that Mr. Garland has gone native and is living in a -- well, we can find him. We can pull him out of there, and have him and Pam, sit there and answer questions in a general way about what evidence the Justice Department of the United States has compiled.

GLENN: Not going to happen.

BILL: That's it!

Well, if it's not going to happen, then President Trump is going to take a hit.

But he's calculating that this will say that it's that night important.

But I don't know why you would not do it.

I just don't know. And I'm usually pretty good at predicting what the president does or does not do.

GLENN: So here's the thing, Bill.

I think he keeps focusing on Epstein. It's not that big of a deal.

It's not about Epstein. It's about justice.

It's about, can we trust the people -- correct!

It's all about credibility and justice.

And he's not seeing that. And I don't know how he's missing that. Because I agree with you.

He's been so busy on so many other things.

BILL: That's right. That's right.

GLENN: This is not at the top of his priority list.

But he did campaign on it.

BILL: Right.

And I don't know if there's anybody inside the White House.

He looks to be annoyed, when this subject comes up.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

BILL: And here's the -- what works -- you have to understand.

A guy like Donald Trump runs it all.

If he's annoyed, nobody will want to annoy him more. Okay?

GLENN: Oh, I know.

BILL: That's how it works. The older arch is, because Epstein got favorable treatment.

By the feds, in the first go around in Florida, that there's a deep suspicion about this case.

But if you break it down, if the Biden administration had any dirt on any Republican associated with Epstein. It would have been out.

And vice-versa.

If the Republicans had any dirt on any Democrats. Now, we know that former president Clinton, was involved with Epstein to some extent.

I don't know if that was a factor, okay? I don't know.

But your right for once. You're right. It's about credibility. It's about the American people trusting that we do have equal justice for all!

So what do you -- what do you make of now the Russia gate thing, coming out, today. Or yesterday.

The FISA court.

The fact that they're now saying, hey.

You know, we need to hold Brennan accountable.

We're like five or six days away.

Weeks away from him, you know, slipping past the -- the statute of limitations.

I mean, all these things are out today.

There's that. There is also the -- let's see here.

The Secret Service -- I think this happened a year ago.

But it's being reported as if it's news.

Secret Service suspends six agents assigned to protect Trump during a Butler assassination attempt. I mean, all these things are coming out. Like, look, we're busy on all these things. And I do believe they're busy on these things.

But it's like the Keystone Cops are in charge of the PR on this. It's bad.

BILL: Well, there's a lot of politics involved in both of those cases. Number one, in order to get Comey and Brennan to get indicted by a grand jury. Federal grand jury, and that's the only passage, you would have to have a whistle-blower, saying, yeah, these guys abused their power. I worked for them. And they absolutely wanted to get Trump.

And they knew the Russia dossier was phony.

And they did it anyway.

If I have that Justice Department.

Then you can get those guys.

If you don't have it, they will not be even indicted by a grand jury.

GLENN: So how is it that we do not have that Justice Department?

How do we not have that Justice Department?

BILL: Well, look. I don't know whether they have a whistle-blower or not, okay?

And if they have a whistle-blower, I want the case to go forward.

I want those two men indicted.

You can't do that, at that level.

As far as the Secret Service is concerned, monumental screw up. Everybody knows it. They fired the morons in charge of it. That woman -- I was embarrassed listening to her, trying to explain.

They didn't know what the deuce was going on. But this was across-the-board, in the Biden administration.

You know, it was a year ago Sunday, this upcoming Sunday.

GLENN: Right.

BILL: And it's just another example of how the Biden administration was the second worst administration in the history of this country. People have no idea how bad it was.

Every single agency was chaotic. Nothing worked. And this is just part of that. And we'll have a slew of stuff on Sunday. Nothing really meaningful.

I mean, they suspended the Secret Service agents, as they should have. They fired the director as they should have. The guy was a nut.

I don't know if there was anything more to that. I doubt it.

I'm more interested in the guy in the bushes. Because they don't know anything about him. I would like to know a little bit about him.

But again, the federal government, it doesn't really matter. It's the government. They never want to tell us stuff, Beck, never.

We always have to pull it out of them. It's almost like Russia or something. Come on!

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Let me ask you, let me take you back again to the Epstein thing.

I noticed yesterday, there were these people who were on the left. Who were taking tweets of mine. That say, look. These things don't make sense. On the Epstein thing. And they just have to be answered. And not anti-Trump at all.

And yet, the anti-Trump people were retweeting that, and they're trying to -- they're trying to get the right to fight against itself again and split people away from Donald Trump, where I don't think this Epstein thing is -- is splitting people from Donald Trump, at least at this point.

And I -- you know, I -- my wife stopped me from answering some of those tweets, yesterday.

Because it's never good, when you -- when I tweet in anger. Which I did.

But -- or was going to. What did you think about how this is being used against the right to try to separate us even more?

BILL: Everything is political. Everybody knows that for you.

But the MAGA people, from the mail I get. And I get a voluminous amount of mail. They're not happy.

GLENN: Oh, I agree. I'm not happy.

BILL: Now, are they going to throw President Trump under the cliché-ridden bus? No. Because to them, the greater good is being served by a fair tax bill.

Trying to cut waste.

Dealing with Iran effectively. And hopefully dealing with Putin.

That's another thing, that's on Trump's plate.

He has to deal with Putin now.

Has to. And that will be the next big story.

GLENN: How is he going to deal with it?

BILL: Lavrov and Rubio, are in Indonesia, as we speak.

And I assume that Rubio is delivering a message. That you either stop, or we're going to just absolutely crush you economically. Which the United States can do. By saying. No bank does business with Moscow.

And if you do business, no matter what bank you are, we're going to put you out of business.

Okay?

GLENN: Yeah. I've only got a couple of seconds. But didn't we already do that under Biden?

BILL: No! We didn't do the banks. We did the sanctions. And the sanctions they can always get around, because China is going to buy as much oil from Russia as possible.

You stop the banks, from doing all business with Moscow? Who is going --

GLENN: Isn't that what the SWIFT thing was all about?

When we kicked them off of SWIFT, wasn't that what that was all about?

BILL: No! Because they can still do a huge business with countries buying their oil.

And they got to pay Putin and Russia for the oil, and that has to go through the banking system.

If you stop the banking system, he can't get paid.

GLENN: Hmm, it's amazing. I'm glad I'm not the president right now. I think he's made some very brave decisions, and he is walking a tightrope. I mean, the world is on edge. And I pray for --

BILL: He looks very tired to me. Very tired. I haven't talked to him in a while, which is unusual. But you're right. You're absolutely right. That's the second time you've been right in this conversation. My God!

GLENN: I know. It's crazy.

BILL: What in the world.

GLENN: I was wrong about you being dead.

BILL: What is happening?

GLENN: It's good -- it's good to talk to you, my friend. Is everything okay? Is everything going well?

BILL: Everything is all right, Beck. We are not only successful, but that's old news. We've been that way for 50 years, but I appreciate you having me on your fine program.

GLENN: Okay. I love you.

BILL: Stu is still breathing.

GLENN: Hmm.

BILL: So that's good. Right.

But I've got a big book called Confronting Evil. Of course, we sent it, and of course you denied getting it. That comes out September 9th, so put me on a dance card.

GLENN: Well, we'll have you on. And you can also find Bill and his YouTube page. YouTube.com/BillOReilly. Or is it The Walking Dead?
(laughter)
He's not even laughing. Maybe he hung up. Bill O'Reilly, great to have him on.

TV

FLASHBACK: Kash Patel says FBI Director has Epstein's "Black Book!"

During a 2023 interview with Glenn Beck, now-FBI Director Kash Patel adamantly proclaims that the FBI and specifically the FBI Director is in direct control of Jeffrey Epstein's "Black Book" of clients. So now given the most recent claims by Patel and DOJ Attorney General Pam Bondi, what has changed from his perspective since taking this role? What do YOU think is the explanation for this change in tune by Kash Patel?

Watch Glenn Beck's Extended Interview with Kash Patel from 2023 HERE

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Are Epstein's "Blackmail Videos" Being Used for Leverage RIGHT NOW?

What was Jeffrey Epstein's operation all about. If he was at the center of a massive blackmail operation to compromise those in positions of power, who is in possession of that information now? Glenn Beck and ATF Whistleblower John Dodson analyze the details of this situation and give their thoughts on what is the most likely reality surrounding Epstein.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with ATF Whistleblower John Dodson HERE