Writer: Here’s Why It’s Dangerous – for Everyone – to Designate White Supremacists As ‘Terrorists’

Expanding government is dangerous for every American – and that even applies when it comes to white supremacists. Liz Wolfe, managing editor for Young Voices, joined Glenn on radio Monday to explain why labeling white supremacists as terrorists is a dangerous expansion of government.

If white nationalist groups are designated terrorists in the eyes of the law, other groups can be targeted based on ideology. More government power isn’t going to fix the problem.

“Essentially, you can make it so you give the Trump administration the power to go after white nationalist groups. … Then that power can just easily be used to target left-leaning groups; it could just as easily be used to target Second Amendment groups,” Wolfe explained.

Glenn and Stu also wanted her perspective on why millennials seem to want big government in theory but free market innovations like Uber in practice. Glenn offered a hopeful take: “I have tremendous faith in this next generation.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Time for an adult conversation. Time for -- time to get away from the -- the 144 characters for just a -- just a second and -- and actually have a conversation with some nuance.

We have Liz HEP Wolf joining us. She is the managing editor of Young Voices. She wrote an article in Playboy, or had an article in Playboy about the problem with categorizing white nationalists as terrorists.

Welcome, Liz, how are you?

LIZ: I'm doing well. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Good.

Let's just start on a couple things. First of all, are you a white supremacist? Are you a white supremacist?

LIZ: I am definitely not.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

STU: You hesitated too long.

GLENN: Are you a nationalist?

LIZ: That's sort of hard to define. I don't think so, as a Libertarian.

GLENN: Right. So as a nationalist, as we were just talking about with Steve Bannon last night on 60 Minutes, he talked about the American system. And he specifically mentioned Henry Clay. And he said, "The American system is what made America great." I think it's the exact opposite. But here's what the Henry Clay system was: a tariff to protect and promote American industry, a national centralized bank, and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other internal improvements. Plus, an American school. So basically, a federal -- federalized public school.

LIZ: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I don't know any real conservative or small government Libertarian that is for any of those things.

LIZ: Yeah. Exactly. Totally agree.

GLENN: So you -- in your article, you write about -- you have to fight white nationalism. But be careful not to designate them as terrorists. Why?

LIZ: Well, because whenever you expand government power and whenever you sort of mince words especially with political groups, I think it's really challenging. Because, essentially, you can make it so that you give the Trump administration the power to go after white nationalist groups, which the question of whether or not they'll actually do that is a whole 'nother thing. But then that power can just as easily be used to target left-leaning groups, it could just as easily be used to target Second Amendment groups. When you expand that government power and allow them to classify all sorts of domestic and somewhat political groups as terrorists, really, really bad things can happen.

GLENN: It's amazing to me that people don't get this with what's happening with DACA right now. The government said, "Hey, give us your information." So people did.

Now what's going to happen to all of that information? Now you've self-identified. And if Trump wanted to use that information, he could. If it's not him, somebody else will have that information.

You just -- you don't -- you don't like to expand the government and give it more information and more power. Because you don't know who is going to be next.

LIZ: Well, exactly. And I think a lot of people in my generation, sort of haven't done a good job of understanding that for every Obama administration where you give them expanded power, you know, then there's the other side in charge. Or, you know, if you particularly like George W. Bush, at the end of that administration, the Obama administration comes into power. And it's worth thinking, what are the long-term consequences of these expansions of power? I think they tend to be really bad.

GLENN: So how do we -- I don't understand how your generation, who unlike a lot of people my age, don't have faith in the next generation. I have tremendous faith in this next generation. And partly because we have to. I mean, you're the ones -- you're going to fix it. You're going to fix it.

STU: Yeah, we believe you because we have no other freaking choice.

(laughter)

GLENN: Well, no. But, I mean, that was part of it. Just like my parents had to have faith in me. You have to have faith in the next generation. But I also see that you instinctively get it. For instance, I can't convince people at all that the world is going to change. And really, you need to rethink your business entirely.

Today, I come in, and there's a story about Nordstrom's, how they're getting rid of all the clothing in Nordstrom's. Well, what's left? And it's because, as Nordstrom's says, the store is changing. The experience is different.

You guys see a different world where you're able to do whatever you want, create whatever you want. You don't need these big systems and big companies and everything else.

How is it you miss the connection in your generation between that freedom and big government?

LIZ: I'm really hopeful that it's something that we'll learn over time and learn through trial and error. Right? The more we make these mistakes, the more we'll suffer the consequences and realize, there's a problem when you expand the federal government's power.

I think that is really interesting what you're talking about, about how millennials are comfortable with various industries being disrupted. By new technology. By change. My evolution. But then they very much don't see that connection between, should you give some of that power back to the government? And I'm hopeful that as they see those -- the negative results that come from that, they'll realize, you know, as they get older and older, wait a second, that's not the world we want.

GLENN: What are you -- what are you seeing on the horizon, with people your age? And tell me about your organization.

LIZ: So my organization is an organization that works with a whole bunch of young writers. And they're typically politically independent. Some of them are more conservative. Some of them are more Libertarian. And we're really trying to get those messages of limited government, of increased freedom, of personal responsibility out there.

And so we work with a whole bunch of outlets. We have people publish in Daily Beast. We have people publish in Playboy. We have people in Washington Examiner, the American Conservative.

The whole concept is that there's no limit to the number of people and organizations that can carry this pro-freedom message. So I'm an editor, and I work to get their work, you know, in tip-top shape and published.

GLENN: And what are you seeing as the -- if things would melt down -- and, I mean, we're already starting to see colleges just -- it's a nightmare, what has happened, and the cost of college in the last ten years, alone, the debt that is coming. And everybody is being strapped to this.

When the government is standing there, and somebody like Bernie Sanders says, "I'll take care of you." Or on the other side, somebody like, you know, a Steve Bannon says, "I'll take care of you."

What's to stop your generation from saying, "Thank God somebody is going to step in?"

VOICE: I don't think there's much right now. I think you see people in my generation being obsessed with Bernie Sanders or not understanding that there is -- you know, there are always long-term consequences and unintended consequences to every decision that you make, whether it's on a personal level or on a government level, right?

And I think, you know, once people in my generation become taxpayers and realize, okay. We're investigating in college, we're ramping up the price of college, and we're having to foot the bill for that? I think they'll sort of begin to realize that maybe it's not the best investment. Maybe it's not the future they want. And I think they'll start to pursue a middle ground, hopefully.

STU: I like to be the person who is always negative on the program, so let me take the opposite side here. Because -- and this is an imperfect sort of comparison. But it reminds -- you know, September 11th is today. After that, there were a bunch of musical acts that came out and actors that came out and said things that conservatives, in particular, were like, "Shut up. Just do your job. Sing your songs. Do your acting. Stop talking about politics." And I felt that way too. I remember at that time. Then you got later on, then some conservative celebrities started coming out and they started saying things. And it felt awesome. Yes! You do it. Go for it.

And all the way to the point, at the end, where you've got Kid Rock potentially running for Senate. Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Conservatives apparently really do like when celebrities say things that they agree with.

And it's interesting because I think, like, with the government, it's the same way. Every -- it feels too good when you're in power to utilize the power. And so all the conservatives now are wanting to execute the same things that we complained about liberals doing years ago, when Obama was in power.

And I -- I don't know that there's enough people who can resist that temptation when it's put in front of them. I mean, do you have any hope on that front?

LIZ: Not as much as I would like.

STU: Yes. She's on my side. She's on my side.

GLENN: Trying to find some good -- can we find something positive here?

LIZ: Well, I think there's this issue of, we see growing tribalism. Right? When people on your side do it, you're like, "Yeah, we're the winning team." When people on the other side do it, you're like -- I mean, think about the number of people that hate Lena Dunham nowadays. I asked somebody, you know, he was writing on Lena Dunham the other day. And I was like, why do you dislike her? And he was like, I don't know. Like, she's a liberal. She was campaigning for Hillary, and she lives in Brooklyn. And I was like, well, that alone isn't necessarily bad enough to hate somebody. I can think of all sorts of other reasons. But that alone is not good enough.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Her show is a good reason, for example.

GLENN: Why just hate people? Racism is so stupid. Get to know people. Know why you despise them for specific reasons.

LIZ: Like you can definitely find reasons. Like super easy ones.

GLENN: Once you get to know me, I can give you 100 reasons. Why stop at the surface? So what is the Libertarian message that is sexy?

I mean, what is the thing that -- that will sell, when you've got all kinds of problems? What's the thing that's going to make people -- the millennials say, "Yeah. That's me. I'm in?"

LIZ: Well, so far, we haven't found it. Marijuana legalization didn't seem to work.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: I think in general, focusing on how expanded power can hurt people on both sides. It's not just going to come back and hurt the neo-Nazis, you know, the ones who are really easy to identify as the bad guys. I mean, we've seen the FBI target the Black Panthers in the past. We've seen them target anti-war activists. We've seen them target animal rights activists, for crying out loud.

And so appealing to people and letting them know, you know, when you expand government power, it can be used to target the obvious bad guys. It can also be used to target lots of other groups -- I mean, especially left-leaning groups would find those groups very sympathetic, right? So it's important to sort of drive that point home.

GLENN: Where is the line? Where is the line? Because, you know, you mentioned the Black Panthers or animal activist groups. I can't remember -- you might remember, Stu. About ten years ago, there was this really nasty virulent animal activist group that was engaged in terror.

STU: Named after a wonderful alien from '80s sitcoms, Alf.

GLENN: That's right. That's right. Alf. So where is the line? Where is the line of saying, "This group we do need to --

LIZ: Well, I don't know. But I think that's the precise reason why up until now, we've been so hesitant to label domestic terrorist groups as terrorist groups. We're comfortable labeling international terrorist groups as that, because we have a more clearly defined set of criteria. With domestic groups, it's really, really difficult to draw that line. It's difficult. One person's, you know, Black Panther terrorist group could be another person's political group. One person could see the NRA as terrorists for some reason, whereas others see them as exercising their Second Amendment rights, that, you know, they're given in the Constitution.

And I think that's precisely the issue, that it's so hard to draw that line. And so I err on the side of not letting anybody in any position of power draw that line, at least right now, especially when it's so politically motivated.

STU: It's interesting to me too. Because these are big issues. The article you wrote about, white supremacy, it's hard to come up with a bigger one than that. But even with just like basic economic foundations.

When we talked about -- you know, growing up -- before the internet, right? There was a lot of things to believe, that conservatism would be good for the economy. A lot of things to believe that economic freedom is a moral principled stand. But it's so much easier now to understand it. With the internet. With Uber. With all of these services that are outside of any structure, that develop on their own, and that are all the things that millennials like the best.

GLENN: Yes. How are you --

STU: And yet, they're like, we need more government control. I cannot understand it. I can't get past it.

LIZ: Yeah, I mean, my home city of Austin, they were regulating and making it horribly and it's like, wait a second. Millennials it means after a night out of drink, what's not like to like there? But it's amazing. They still feel like we should fall for increased regulation in all these areas. I don't get it.

STU: Yeah. I don't get it.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Liz. That is Liz Wolf.

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.