Christian Baker Case Is About Religious Freedom, Not Discrimination

Catch me up:

Colorado baker Jack Phillips is having his day in court, battling for artistic expression and religious freedom in one of the most high-profile Supreme Court cases to be heard this term. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips declined a request from a gay couple to make a custom cake for their wedding.

After he turned away the couple in 2012, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the baker violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

How is the court leaning so far?

The justices heard oral argument today and questioned Phillips’ attorney. Justices Elena Kegan and Sonia Sotomayor quizzed him on what exactly constitutes free speech when you’re fulfilling services for a customer, while Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs” in its ruling.

National Review senior writer David French joined Glenn on today’s show to analyze the nuanced case. French emphasized the fact that Phillips doesn’t “discriminate” against gay customers; he’ll serve anyone, but he didn’t want to be part of the message behind a gay wedding.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Today is a pretty important day in the court system. Today is the day that Jack Phillips goes to the Supreme Court. He is the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. And he refused to custom design a cake to help celebrate a gay wedding. And as a Christian, he says, I can't advance the message of gay weddings and -- and gay unions, because it's wrong, according to my religious belief. But he said, I'll sell you cupcakes. I'll sell you cakes. I'll sell you anything.

I just can't do the wedding cake. So he has no problem serving gay people. In fact, going another step, he has refused to make cakes for several people that weren't gay. Because he said, I don't agree with the message that you want to put on the cake.

I'm sorry. You want a topless woman with big bazoombas made out of icing, I don't do that. I won't do that. Okay?

So he has a long --

STU: Very strong anti-bazoomba stance.

GLENN: Yeah, very strong.

STU: I hope that's supported by the Constitution. I don't know that it is. I don't know that it is.

GLENN: But we have somebody on the phone that might know. David French. David, I won't start with the bazoomba clause in the Constitution.

But you wrote a great article. And you said that you're going crazy by the way this is being misrepresented. And Jennifer Finney Boylan is really the head of the snake on this one, from the New York Times.

DAVID: Yeah. It's a remarkable -- it's the most misrepresented Supreme Court case I've ever encountered, and here's how it's being misrepresented: Essentially what people are saying is that this cake designer's decision not to design a cake that advances a point of view that he objects to, is the same as segregated lunch counters. It's the same as refusing medical treatment to LGBT people. I mean, the parade of horribles that you're -- that you see spun out from this case is absolutely unbelievable.

GLENN: Explain.

DAVID: You hit the nail on the head.

GLENN: Explain to me why this isn't the lunch counter of the 1950s.

DAVID: It's very easy. He doesn't discriminate on the basis of identity. What he does is he decides not to advance certain messages that he agrees with. So if you're black, white, gay, straight, male, female, and walk into his bakery, you're going to be served. It is -- you're going to be served, regardless of your identity. Regardless of your membership and protected class. If you ask him to use his artistic talent to design a cake or any other thing that sends a message that he disagrees with, like in some of these cases it was like a Halloween message, then he's not going to do that.

And this is just common sense. This is normal stuff.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Is it because the witches had big bazoombas? Is that what --

DAVID: Well, I've not explored that one.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Well, you should look into it. I know you're a serious thinker.

She goes on -- the New York Times says this -- and you just used this word, his artistic ability.

She wrote in the New York Times: Mr. Philips certainly makes nice-looking cakes, but I'm not sure I'd call them artistic expressions. At least not the same sense as say, Joyce's Ulysses. That argument demands that the court get into the business of defining art itself. A door the justices open at their own peril.

Is a well-manicured lawn a form of art by this definition? How about lean corn beef sandwiches? Would they not be art if the court rules to protect icing and butter cream?

DAVID: You know, that is so unbelievably absurd.

Here's what she's intentionally avoiding: The actual cake that this -- the gay couple settled on to celebrate their wedding, was a rainbow cake.

Now, are you going to tell me that that doesn't send a very clear message, that a well-manicured lawn doesn't send or a corn beef sandwich doesn't send -- she's acting as if the court has to decide the very definition of art itself, when all the court has to decide is, in this case, was he being asked to engage in artistic expression?

And this goes to something George Will sadly, mistakenly wrote, just the other day. He said -- he made much the same point, that this isn't art. It's primarily food. Are you going to tell me that a wedding cake is primarily food? Is that why people spend thousands of dollars sometimes to make sure that it's just a --

GLENN: I have to tell you something, my father was a baker. But he was -- he made wedding cakes. And he spent Fridays and Saturdays making wedding cakes. And they were -- they were pieces of art. And they took him forever. And it took him years and years and years of study and practice, to be able to practice that art.

And people would come from all over to get his wedding cakes. There is a difference. Otherwise, you just get a wedding cake at a Costco.

DAVID: Right. I mean, all you have to do to know it's art. It's like do a Google image search for beautiful a wedding cake. And you'll see amazing things.

You feel like people are being intentionally obtuse here. Everybody knows when one of the centerpieces of an entire wedding reception is the cake. It is one of the most talked about elements of the entire -- of the entire reception.

And, yeah, nobody wants it to taste badly. But they're talking about it because of the way it looks. Because of the way it expresses a view of the ceremony. The way it expresses the personality of the couple. All of that is undeniably artistic. And so, again, this is the most misrepresented case I've seen. They misrepresent the nature of what Jack Phillips did. And they misrepresent the nature of his work.

GLENN: So is this about art? Or is this about advancing a message?

DAVID: Well, it's -- well, in this case, it's -- it's both. It's about using your artistic ability to advance a message. And whether or not the state can force you as an artist to use your artistic ability to specifically advance a message. And that one woo run counter to generations of First Amendment case law. Generations that say, you cannot be compelled to advance a message that you disagree with.

GLENN: So most Americans -- as you point out, most Americans, if a white customer came in and said, I want a Confederate flag Klan cake. If that was an African-American baker, we would all say, he doesn't have to make that, man. He doesn't have to make that.

DAVID: Right.

GLENN: We would all understand that. And it would be fine. Now, if that baker said, I'm not serving any white people, and I'm not serving you anything, we still would understand, I'm not -- I'm not going to serve you because you're a Klan member. We'd still even understand it. But we would say it was wrong.

This is -- this is -- this is the -- you can't compare these two.

DAVID: Yeah. Even when the specific art doesn't send a very specific message -- now, think of -- remember when Melania and Ivanka Trump were getting ready for the inaugural ball, and all these designers said, I don't want to lend my artistic ability to design dresses for Melania and Ivanka.

Well, that was their right. They don't have to use their artistic talents to support a political family they disagree with, even though Melania and Ivanka are women and women are a protected class in public accommodation statue.

So this -- time and again, you can come up with these counterfactuals. And time and again, people on the left go, oh, well, that's different. Oh, that's different. Well, how is it different? And then they'll go, segregated lunch counters. Jim Crow.

GLENN: They'll say on her, she doesn't -- she wasn't born that way. She wasn't born that way.

DAVID: Well, she was born a woman. She was born a woman. And women disproportionately wear dresses. Or a person who wants a Confederate flag cake is disproportionately white. It's the same logic that they're using to try to claim their sexual orientation discrimination here. And they say, well, it's disproportionately, gay people would want a same-sex wedding cake. So, therefore, it's discrimination on the basis of status, which is false.

GLENN: So should -- I mean, just to make this point, should Melania or someone sue those -- I guess she would be the only one with standing, sue those people to make the point that, no, you don't have to make a dress for me.

If you don't want to, you're an artist. You don't have to make that dress for me.

DAVID: Well, you know, I do think if this decision turns out against Jack Phillips, people will start to do that. You will start to see these kinds of lawsuits popping up around the country, where say, for example, conservatives will then try to force progressives to advance their point of view. And then, you know, we're going to get into this mess, where we've seen this happen before, and what ends up happening -- when it's a particularly important sexual revolution issue to the court. Often, they'll carve out these distortions in the First Amendment. They did one for a long time. It became known as the abortion distortion, where if you were protesting abortion, magically, you would end up with fewer free speech rights than virtually anybody else.

What we're seeing in the clash between sexual liberty and free speech is all too often courts are carving out specific exceptions and specific special rules to help advance sexual liberty at the expense of First Amendment freedoms.

STU: Talking to David French.

David, I'm fascinated by this use of kind of a classic left-wing thing to say, which is that the courts can't define art. They've been saying that forever. But it's always used the other way, when something that might not be art -- it's always used to include everything is art. And in this one case, they can't find any art, in a beautiful wedding cake --

GLENN: A mason jar with piss and a crucifix is art, but this cake is not.

STU: But this cake is not. Isn't that a complete reverse of the way they usually use that argument?

DAVID: Oh, absolutely. For generations, there have been progressive lawyers arguing to expand the definition of protected speech under -- in the First Amendment. And many times, during so rightfully. Many times you doing so in ways that advance our liberty. But now all of a sudden, this thing that is obviously to any person, any objective reasonable observer is an artistic expression, suddenly it's primarily food.

GLENN: Well, it's primarily piss. So let me -- let me just ask you this last question. We have to cut you loose. The -- the court is hearing this case today.

The swing vote is Kennedy. Kennedy has already ruled in a way that looks like you should rule in favor of the baker.

What do you think is going to happen?

DAVID: Well, you know, if Kennedy holds to some of the language he wrote in the Obergefell decision, then I think Jack Phillips will win. I mean, in the Obergefell decision, Kennedy acknowledged that there are deep differences, religious differences, in particular, about the definition of marriage, and that the Obergefell decision was not designed to force anyone to profess agreement with a definition of a marriage that differs from the courts, that differs from the Obergefell opinion.

And in that circumstance, if Kennedy holds to that logic and holds to that reasoning and also holds to his own history of First Amendment jurisprudence, then Jack Phillips should win. But we'll -- of course, we'll see.

GLENN: Yeah. It could happen -- aliens could come down and just hold a conference on the steps of the Supreme Court, and it wouldn't surprise me at this point.

David French, thank you so much.

DAVID: Thanks for having me.

GLENN: David French, senior fellow and writer at the National Review.

STU: We'll tweet out his article. You can go to Glenn Beck or @worldofStu to get it.

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.

Glenn has focused on exposing the dark side of the gender movements waging our culture war, and now, there's a new "trend" emerging as an offshoot to the transgender movement. A growing online community, particularly of men, who consider themselves "involuntarily celibate" or "incels" believe they can live a better life as a trans woman. Why? This community purports the world is rigged against men, particularly against traditionally "unattractive men." What's the solution? Stop being a man...

Incel or "involutarily celibate" communities have existed online in the dark corners of Reddit and Discord for years. The groups are marked by a hatred towards women, blaming them for rigging the world in their favor and denying them of sex. Several members of this growing community have been responsible for large acts of violence, most notably Alek Minassian, who killed 10 and injured 16 after driving a van into a busy area of Toronto in 2021.

However, the transgender movement has presented a new option for incel members: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em... or, in the Transmaxxers' case, "become them."

The online Transmaxxer's Manifesto says, “Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.” According to the manifesto, transitioning to female not only opens up a different pool of sexual partners, but moreover, you gain access to female-only spaces and are “able to extract resources from males.”

“Since females have the upper hand on the dating market, transitioning from male to female will usually improve your options when it comes to getting sex.”

Another member wrote, "If you do not currently feel like living as a female you might have to work on fixing that ... Identifying as male or being emotionally attached to a male body is bad for you if being male results in you living a bad life.”

This new movement is significant because it is in stark contrast to the mainstream narrative that "transgenderism" is an innate quality. Now, it can be an "option" people choose for social advantage. A moderator going by the alias “Vintologi” on the Transmaxxing Discord server, which boasts over 1,200 members, told The Daily Caller:

Transmaxxing is about transitioning for personal gain rather than focusing on things like "gender identity." ... What matters when it comes to medical transition is whether or not said transition would actually be beneficial, thus the extent to which gender identity is innate does not inform us much regarding when medical transition is appropriate.

One incel member on Reddit lamented that he can't Transmaxx to "have sex with white trans women" and to have "all the benefits of [being] female."

Transmaxxing sheds light on a concerning issue as an increasing number of people, particularly the youth, identify as "transgender." What used to be considered as a "finge case" is now being seen as a social advantage. Glenn recently sat down with de-transitioner Chloe Cole, and the amount of pressure she experienced to become a transgender man AS A TEENAGER was ASTOUNDING. She discussed the new community, friendships, and affirmation she gained when she started her transition journey, and she lost ALL of those social perks when she began de-transitioning. She exchanged affirmation for death-threats, friendships for stone-cold silence.

Transmaxxing is a very specific example of a larger movement that is deeply concerning. Not only is the thansgender ideology problematic on its own merits, but now, we are seeing a rise of a distinction of "social advantage" based on gender affiliation. This is deviating away from the original notion that transgenderism is an innate quality. Now, many consider it more "socially advantageous" to identify as transgender than with your biological gender.