Steve Bannon Says America Was Built on ‘Nationalism’ – What Does That Mean?

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon unleashed some shocking quotes in a recent interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” including seeming to call for bigger government in the U.S.

“Economic nationalism is what this country was built on, the American system,” Bannon said, explaining that this nationalist system included lending to manufacturers to support American production and controlling the border.

On radio Monday, Glenn Beck parsed this particular segment of the interview to take a look at the word “nationalism.”

“Is anybody noticing what he’s just done?” Glenn asked. He explained the link between nationalism and white supremacy that was realized under the Nazi regime.

“The Nazis are white nationalists; they’re not just white supremacists,” he said.

In the same interview, Bannon said that President Donald Trump was fighting for a “populist, economic nationalist agenda.” People have long been accusing Bannon and other members of the Trump administration of racism, but they are forgetting that fascism also focused on a nationalist economic system. Nationalism, as explained by Bannon, includes a tariff on overseas imports intended to protect American industry; a national bank; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other infrastructure elements.

“What he is fighting for … is tariffs, a central bank, infrastructure bailouts and federalized schools,” Glenn said. “That is the American system that he just quoted.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Where does America go from here?

We are at a crossroads. And we have more things that are coming our way -- economic troubles. We have more decisions to make, and there's a lot of things that the media is just not paying attention to.

Last night, on 60 Minutes, Steve Bannon -- they did an interview with Steve Bannon. And you're going to hear a lot of talk about it. Probably not with you. But you'll hear talk about it with radio and television. And the media will have the story all wrong. Because what they're going to focus on is Steve Bannon and racism.

They want to focus -- and Charlie Rose did this. They wanted to focus on immigration and racism and everything else. I want you to listen to what he said here. Because the media won't. And somebody needs to point this out. Listen.

VOICE: There's no path to citizenship. No path to a green card. And no amnesty. Amnesty is non-negotiable.

VOICE: America was in the eyes of so many people. And it's what people respect America for, it is people have been able to come here, find a place, contribute to the economy. That's what immigration has been in America.

And you seem to want to turn it around and stop it.

VOICE: You couldn't be more dead wrong. America was built on her citizens.

VOICE: We're all immigrants, except for the Native Americans who were here.

VOICE: America was built -- this is the thing of the left: Charlie, that's beneath you.

America is built on her citizens. Look at the 19th century. What built America is called the American system. From Hamilton, to Polk, to Henry Clay, to Lincoln, to the Roosevelts. A system of protection of our manufacturing. Financial system that lends to manufacturers. Okay? And a control of our borders. Economic nationalism is what this country was built on. The American system. Right? We go back to that. We look after our own. We look after our citizens. We look after our manufacturing base, and guess what, this country is going to be greater, more united, more powerful than it's every been. This is not astrophysics.

GLENN: So as I'm watching this last night, I'm thinking to myself, "Is anybody noticing what he's just done?" He starts out with something like, "Amnesty is off the table."

And there's a lot of conservatives -- and I'm one of them. I don't agree with amnesty. However, we have to have a discussion on what do we do? What does an actual plan look like going forward?

So we get stopped there. But we're not listening to what he's saying. Remember, he's talking about white supremacists. White nationalists.

The Nazis are white nationalists. They're not just white supremacists. And that's where this is getting lost. You just stop at the white part.

Well, those guys are racist. Okay. Well, that's kind of a big deal.

But that's not all the Nazis are. They're white nationalists. So Donald Trump or Bannon or whoever -- I don't know. He may be racist. He may not be racist. I don't think the president is a racist.

I've -- I've heard that when you speculate on the president and if he's a racist or not, you get into trouble. Well, that was the last one. Everybody can speculate on this one.

I do know this: That the president and Steve Bannon do believe in economic nationalism. What is that?

You know, it's -- it's strange because I've never heard from conservatives say, "You know, Alexander Hamilton and Polk -- well, Polk was great." The Polk talk I've missed. And then to hear, Polk, Clay, Hamilton, FDR, Lincoln.

Okay. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. You'll notice he called it the American system. The American system is Henry Clay's system. Now, this is what he said built America. The American system is three parts: One, a tariff on other countries to protect all American industry. Two, a national Federal Reserve Bank. A national bank. Three, federal subsidies for roads, canals, infrastructure. And, by the way, Hamilton added one extra and that was public schools. An American federal public school.

So if you are sitting here listening to him, I want you to know what he is fighting for and what the president -- he says -- at least he says the president is fighting for is tariffs, a central bank, infrastructure bailouts, and federalized schools.

That is the American system that he just quoted. You know who is for that? Socialists. In particular, national socialists.

And the -- the third thing to add to that would be supremacists. White, black, it doesn't matter. People who believe that they are better than everyone else, and they can form a nationalized system that will control everything. It usually ends up being, well, we've got to get rid of some of these inferior people.

That is what Bannon is pushing for. That is what nationalism and the American system actually means.

GLENN: It's really interesting, this economic nationalism that Steve Bannon was talking about on 60 Minutes. And I want you to understand that white nationalism, the -- the racist part, is only half of it. That's only half.

The reason why -- the reason why the Nazis are so spooky is, they have the ability, through a nationalized government of every strong centralized government, to kill everybody they disagree with. That's the problem.

You know, Bill the Nazi down the street is a problem. I don't like Bill the Nazi. I don't know Bill the Nazi. And I want my kids to stay away from Bill the Nazi. But Bill the Nazi is not rounding people up, because he doesn't have the government to do it.

STU: You need that infrastructure to be able to accomplish those tasks. That's why we argue for small government all the time.

GLENN: Correct. Yes.

So you can say, "Well, I disagree with all that, that racist part." But if you're not paying attention to the nationalist part, that's a problem. That's a real problem.

STU: It's -- it creates the conditions that terrible things like that, like the Holocaust are possible. Right? Now, obviously we're not talking about the exact same system here. But it's that strain of nationalism that led in Germany and many other places.

GLENN: With the Nazis here in America, you are talking about exactly the same strain. You're not talking about it with Bannon, per se.

STU: No.

GLENN: I don't know if -- I don't want to say that Bannon is a racist, you know, or a white supremacist at all. I don't think he is. But --

STU: He --

GLENN: He is playing footsy with those people and only condemning half of the ideology. And the scary part of the ideology is having the conditions to where you can force that ideology on others. And that's the nationalist part.

STU: One of the things Bannon did before he came into the political eye was he worked for a company, I think it was World of Warcraft, the video game. And in there, you mine for fake video game gold. And he started working for a company that hired farms of people to mine the fake video game gold and sell the gold -- the fake gold, to people for real money that played the game.

So they would have people go in by the thousands and play the game to get these credits, right? And sell the credits to people who liked playing the game, but didn't want to work so hard for the credits. And they'd pay money for them.

Now, the business was a complete disaster, as many of his have been. And it fell apart in a sort of catastrophe situation. However, the interesting part of it was that was where he sort of found the fuel. Because that gaming community was so insular and so passionate, that he found, those sort of quirky weird movements could provide a lot of fuel for a much larger movement. And that's where it's believed he got the idea to bring in the movements like the alt-right and take the energy that they had through these really passionate niche sort of beliefs, to drive a candidate, if he could -- if he could find -- if he could convince them that this candidate was friendly to them.

GLENN: See, here's the problem with this, is the average person is being driven right into the arms of -- of these spooky people, quite honestly. Driven right into them. And I don't think most people understand how that is happening.

Can we play cut three? Mike Lee. Mike Lee is fighting for religious freedom. And the reason why this is happening is -- something we're going to address next hour, that happened on Capitol Hill, where senators were questioning a person's Catholicism and saying, "I'm not sure if you're qualified to be able to serve in the federal government," because you are a Catholic.

It was crazy. Now, listen to what the warning is here from Mike Lee.

MIKE: Another one of my colleagues, he even went so far as to ask Professor Barrett to confess her faith under oath in the committee.

"What's an orthodox Catholic," this committee member asked. "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?" If these remarks had been some sort of bizarre, one time aberration, I probably would have passed them over, in silence.

But I feel compelled to speak out. Because I wonder whether a pattern might be emerging, a pattern of a hostility toward people of faith who come before this body.

Just a few months ago, another eminently qualified nominee, Russell Vought appeared before the Budget Committee to be considered for a post at the Office of Management and Budget.

One of my Senate colleagues used his time to question this nominee. Not about managements. Not about management or about budgets, but about the nominee's evangelical Christian beliefs.

"In your judgment," asked this senator, "Do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?"

Now, Mr. Vought explained to the committee that he is an evangelical Christian and that he adheres to the beliefs espoused by evangelical Christians. But that apparently wasn't good enough for the questioner who later stated that he would vote against Mr. Vought's nomination because he was not -- and I quote, what this country is supposed to be about.

This is disturbing. This is not what the country is supposed to be about. Some sort of inquiry into one's religious beliefs, as a condition precedent for holding office in the United States government. These strange questions have nothing to do with the nominee's competence or patriotism, or ability to serve among and for Americans of different faiths, equally.

In fact, they have little to do with this life at all. Instead, they have to do with the afterlife, what comes after we die, in this life.

To my knowledge, the ONB and the Seventh Circuit have no jurisdiction over that. This country is divided enough. Millions of Americans feel that Washington, DC, and the dominant culture despise them. And how could they not when they see their leaders sitting here, grilling patriotic citizens about their faith, like inquisitors? How could they not feel like their values are not welcomed in this chamber, within this government?

Religious freedom is of deep concern to me, as a Mormon.

GLENN: Did you hear what he just said, that people feel like their leaders despise them.

This is a very dangerous seed to plant. And, quite honestly, both parties -- and not just on religious terms -- you know and I know, Mitch McConnell, he doesn't like you.

The people who are the upper ends of the party, they don't like you. They're embarrassed by you. That is a dangerous seed to plant.

And they've been planting those seeds in Washington for a while. And that's what gives people like Bannon and white nationalists, black nationalists, Antifa -- it gives them the opportunity to grow, because you need a protector. We need to change that culture.

Tapping the brakes on transgenderism in 2023

Hunter Martin / Contributor | Getty Images

2022 was the year of the emperor’s new clothes—where we were supposed to pretend that someone like Lia Thomas is a woman, legitimately beating actual women in swimming competitions. This carpet-bombing of common sense won’t be letting up anytime soon. Just before the New Year, the World Boxing Council announced that it’s going to create a separate category for transgender boxers. The WBC president said:

we are doing this because of safety and inclusion. We have been the leaders in rules for women’s boxing—so the dangers of a man fighting a woman will never happen because of what we are going to put in place.

After all the insanity you’ve been told to accept about transgender athletes in recent years, his statement is remarkable. He’s admitting what common sense people have been saying all along—that trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages (from the fact that they’re actually male), and that those natural advantages could endanger biological women.

Trans athletes identifying as women still carry natural physical advantages.

The WBC president went on to say:

In boxing, a man fighting a woman must never be accepted regardless of gender change. There should be no gray area around this, and we want to go into it with transparency and the correct decisions. Woman to man or man to woman transgender change will never be allowed to fight a different gender by birth.

Maybe the WBC is on to something here. Maybe the only way to solve the stupidity of letting biological males play female sports is to create a separate transgender category in every sport. That would make competition fair again. However, the trans agenda will never accept this because it doesn’t validate their transition—in fact, it admits that these are not authentically female athletes.

There is some rare, good news on this front. In late December, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold a Florida school-board policy that requires transgender students to use the bathroom of their biological sex. Of course, the Left won’t accept this, so this case will probably go to the Supreme Court sooner than later. You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

You’re supposed to always believe the science, except when it comes to your own body parts.

And by the way, if the Left truly cared about unbiased science as it pertains to transgenderism, they’d listen to their favorite European country, Sweden. Sweden’s national board of health recently updated its guidelines on treating children with gender dysphoria. Unlike the Biden administration and the U.S. medical establishment right now, Sweden’s new emphasis is caution:

the scientific data is INSUFFICIENT to assess the effects of puberty-inhibiting and gender-sensitive hormone therapy of children and young people.

The Swedish guidelines also mention the prevalence of de-transition cases as another reason for tapping the brakes on sex-change surgeries for children.

Common sense apparently does still exist, even in places like Sweden. If only America would listen.

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

1. Plato's Republic

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

2. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

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

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

3. Augustine's City of God

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

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

4. Aquinas' Summa Theologica

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

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

5. Francis Bacon's Novem Organum

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

6. Descartes' Discourse on Method

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

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

7. David Hume's Treatise on Human Nature

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

8. Kant's Contemplation on the Metaphysics of Morals

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

9. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

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

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

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

11. Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Saving the planet

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

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

2. Private jets

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

I fly commercial [...] Exclusively.

3. Global Collaboration Village

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

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

4. Climate revolution

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

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

5. Do or die

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

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

6. Colossal risks

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

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

7. Rain bombs

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

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

Courtesy of the World Economic Forum

8. Survival comes down to this

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

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

9. Complete transformation

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

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

10. Scientific necessity

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

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

11. Illegal hate speech

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

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

12. Climate first

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

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

13. The role of war

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

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

14. Blame game

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

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

15. Sacrifice for the greater good

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

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

Conclusion

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