Ben Shapiro Praises Trump for This Bold Move on Israel

President Donald Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel today, a controversial move that undoes decades of U.S. foreign policy.

The decision is part of a plan to shift the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, something Trump promised during his 2016 campaign. Moving the embassy is a long process that will take several years, but formally recognizing Israel’s capital is the first step.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro joined Glenn on today’s show to share his perspective on Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Good friend of the program. Daily Wire host and I think one of the most important men in the conservative movement today is Ben Shapiro. He joins us now. You up in New York, Ben?

BEN: Actually, no, I'm in LA. A little early.

GLENN: Yeah, sorry about that.

BEN: Not at all.

GLENN: Ben, I want to talk to you a little bit about what the president is claiming he's going to do today. And that is announce that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If he does that, but he's not announcing that, you know, that there is a new embassy -- we're going to ground break on, does it matter? And why?

BEN: So it does matter. It would matter more if he would move the embassy. The reason why it would matter is because that's a permanent statement. For him to say Jerusalem the eternal, undivided capital of Israel, that's stuff that presidential candidates have said before. The Senate itself voted 90-0 back in June that that was the case. So a political statement by the president is important. But it's always revocable. You can have a new president come in and say, while we don't necessarily believe what Trump believed and maybe it's up for negotiation --

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: -- moving the embassy is more permanent. Yeah.

GLENN: I think it's Obama's Bear Ears monument. The next guy comes in, and it's whatever he wants.

BEN: Yeah, I think that's right. And what I'm hearing from the White House is that the White House is serious about moving the embassy. They're investigating the sites right now. But they're going to have to get it done before the next election, obviously, because you can't expect a Democrat to actually fulfill promises that Democrats have been making for 50 years.

So it's a big move. It's a big announcement. And good for Trump for doing it.

But I would definitely like to see it made more permanent. On the other hand, listen, the president of the United States is saying something that takes moral courage to say, in a time when people refuse to recognize both religious and historic reality on the ground. And that is a grand and good thing. It's definitely a gesture I think that's meaningful.

GLENN: So, Ben, I think you're a religious guy. And those who bless Israel will be blessed. And those who curse Israel will be cursed. I happen to believe that. I believe that we -- we were a country that was founded in part by our desire to restore Israel and to -- to bring Israel back. I think we played a key role to that.

And I've talked to scholars of the Founders who disagreed with me at first, and then went back after a year's worth of research and went, oh, crap. I think you're right. So I think we were blessed because of that path.

I think we'll be blessed because of this. Do you -- do you see it that way at all?

BEN: Yeah, 100 percent. I'm a religious Jew. This means a lot to me as a Jew because Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people. I was explaining it this morning on Fox, that -- in order to understand the value of Jerusalem to Israel, you have to take Washington, DC, and then invest it with godly power and multiply it by a thousand. (inaudible) these things -- literally that we built on a swamp because we didn't want it to be part of any state, Jerusalem was built on a rock because God said so, right? That's the reason Christians care about it. It's the reason Muslims care about it, and it's the reason Jews cared about it a thousand years before Christ. So the idea that it's not the eternal capital is absurd.

As far as whether this is going to be a blessing, I think it will be a blessing because one of the things politically -- just in very practical terms, that I think is necessary here, is if you actually want a real peace negotiation between the Israelis and the Arabs, that has to be premised on some elemental truth.

Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem. Israel is not going to divide Jerusalem. And as soon as the other side recognizes that, as soon as the Arabs recognize that, maybe they can have a negotiation based on reality.

Beyond that, one of the things we're watching in the Middle East is something incredible right now, which is this unintended consequence of Obama's unbelievably crappy foreign policy. There is this new alliance, and pretty strong alliance, now forming the Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia against the Arabians. And for Trump to basically say, listen, I'm just going to get this Jerusalem thing off the table right now with the Israelis. And you're still going to have an alliance. Because it's more important for you to ally against Iran, than smack the Jews about. That's a ground shift in the nature of the relationship and I think something very important.

GLENN: So what do you think is the -- what do you think are the ramifications of this? Do you see any real ramifications?

BEN: Well, I think the Palestinians will try to launch a terror wave. But that's also true in most states.

It -- I think that you'll see some regimes like Saudi Arabia and Jordan have platitudes about how they'll oppose this. But I don't think they'll do anything of any real consequence.

Turkey might try to type in some more supplies to Hamas and the Palestinian authority, which had been operating in a quasi unity government for several years.

But, you know, again this is not the first wave of violence that has hit Israel, not even with regard to Jerusalem. I mean, I wrote an entire piece over at Daily Wire, tracing the history of violence with regard to Jerusalem. The reason that the Muslim world doesn't want to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, because they don't want to recognize Israel as existing. Jerusalem is the heart of Israel. Jerusalem is not Jewish. Neither is Tel Aviv. Neither is Jaffa. Neither is any other Jewish city in Israel. So the recognition of Jerusalem that's an Israeli territory, that may be an ugly truth for a lot of anti-Semitic Muslims, but it is also a truth that is not going to change.

GLENN: So as I was trying to look at this today and put this into perspective, you know, as a lover of history, I look at this and I say, in my lifetime, born in 1964, there are very few things that I would say had real ramifications, eternal ramifications, big ramifications, like the fall of Berlin wall. The defeat of communism.

I believe this is one of the biggest events, if they move the capital. I believe this is one of the biggest events of my lifetime.

Would you agree with that?

BEN: It certainly could be. Yeah, it certainly could be. I mean, if they moved the embassy to Jerusalem, then it does set a new groundwork. And it makes it difficult for the United States ever to back off of that. It puts Israelis in charge of their own faith.

I mean, basically Bill Clinton, since Oslo, too many presidents have held that the fate of Israel's future in their hands, as opposed to letting the Israelis hold their own future in their hands. We really shouldn't be part of these negotiations in the first place. I mean, these are bilateral negotiations the United States has very little to do with.

It's an important thing. It's an important moral step. Because -- because the more that we recognize that, number one, we don't get to boss our allies around. And, number two, the more that we recognize that Israel is a force for good for the region, and we understand our own role in the world.

Our role in the world is as a freedom loving country that helps out freedom-loving allies. It's not as, quote, unquote, honest broker (phonetic) between freedom-loving countries and terrorism and tyranny-loving countries. I think that that is going to set American foreign policy on a new tactic that it desperately needed for a long time.

GLENN: So can I be really crass here? And now look at this politically.

You know, the timing is really interesting to me. And, you know, out of all of the people on the stage, you know, out of the 17 candidates, I just did not think he was going to be the guy that would actually come through with this. Because this takes massive stones to do. And you also have to really believe it. And I don't think -- while he has, you know, some Jewish influence in his family now, I don't think that's enough to do something like this. Usually it comes from a religious zeal, that this is right and righteous.

So let me just float this by, Ben, and see what you think. I think -- I think the president is in much more trouble than he wants to let on or anybody on the right wants to let on. Maybe not as much trouble as the left seems to hope for. But he's in real trouble.

And this gives him -- you can only -- you can only pick the bones of the Gorsuch nomination for so long. And this, again, puts him into a situation with a lot of groups. Especially evangelical Christians. Where you kind of put up with a lot of stuff. And kind of defend -- because you're like, look, that just happened. I mean, I don't know who else would have given us that. And it seems to me that it could be a -- a political maneuver to shore up some real fight to the end of the battle supporters. Am I being --

BEN: That's definitely a possibility. I don't want to psycho analyze the president because I think that's a fool's errand. But I also think that the timing of it is interesting. The truth is, I've never seen anything like -- the last two weeks have been so good for conservatives on policy.

GLENN: Yep.

BEN: You know, everything from the tax cuts to the national TARP stuff to Jerusalem. I mean, this is really, like, hard-core good stuff for conservatives.

And at the same time, the rhetoric that is coming out of the administration, like Roy Moore are really a problem.

And I do agree with you, that I think there may be a political attempt to shore this up.

But I will say that everyone that I know who surrounds the president, and I've gotten to know some members of the administration relatively well.

Everyone who surrounds the president, does believe this stuff, the Jerusalem stuff down to their bones. I'm not just talking about Jared and Ivanka. I'm talking about Vice President Pence. The people who are very close to the White House. This is stuff that they -- one of the things -- you're right, of the people on the stage, who pledged to do this, Trump was the person who I didn't trust the most.

But it does show, for all the people that keep saying, on the left, that the Republican Party is, you know, quasi anti-Semitic and all this nonsense, the fact is that I think that Trump was not the only guy on the stage who actually would have done it.

I mean, the fact that he's done it, he gets the credit obviously. But I think Ted Cruz would have done it. I think there's a good shot Marco Rubio would have done it.

I think there a bunch of candidates on the stage -- this has become a very strong issue for Republicans. So in that sense, I think you're right, it's one way of shoring up the base. But I'm not going to detract from the president for doing the moral thing, just because it's political advantageous.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't -- in fact, I want to do the opposite. I think, if he does this -- yeah, if he does this and he moves the embassy, it's one of the bravest moves I've seen probably since Ronald Reagan said that's an evil empire and needs to be destroyed.

BEN: I think that's right. I think that's exactly right. And I think it's very similar to the way the left has responded. The international commotion. Oh, this is going to be so terrible. It's going to lead to World War III. It's going to be a conflagration.

You know what is really going to happen? Countries have interests in the world. Saudi Arabia does not care that much about Jerusalem.

You know how I know that? Last week, the New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia was actually going to the Palestinian and telling them, you guys need to back off this Jerusalem thing and just cut a deal with Jerusalem and be done here. Saudi Arabia has no interest in this.

The Jordanian kingdom has no interest in this. So the idea that they're all going to suddenly stand up on their hind legs because they're so mad that Trump says that Jerusalem is a part of Israel, which it always has and always will be. I think that that's a lot of leftist claptrap.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Thank you very much. God bless. Editor-in-chief. DailyWire.com.

BEN: Thanks a lot.

GLENN: 2017. Wow.

Could anything else have happened in 2017? I mean, look at the history. We're going to do -- is it next week or the week after, we'll be doing some shows of just the year end review. Oh, my gosh

STU: I'm hesitant because at the end of 2016, I was like, ugh, let's get this year over with, get to something else. Then 2017 is happening. I'm thinking the same thing. But maybe I shouldn't.

GLENN: I know. Be careful what you wish for.

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.