Beware of Youtube Videos That Seem Kid-Friendly but Contain ‘Disturbing’ Content

Peppa Pig and Mickey Mouse may seem like safe cartoon companions for your kids, but did you know there are YouTube creators who use the image of your child’s favorite cartoon to create sexualized and disturbing videos?

If you haven’t watched the video yourself, it might not be safe for your kid. On today’s show, Stu talked about the risks of YouTube’s video suggestions. The site auto-plays related videos, so your child could watch a harmless video featuring Mickey Mouse and then get a suggestion for another clip where Mickey does disturbing things.

USA Today reported:

Some [videos] we found were age restricted, meaning they could only be viewed by signing in with a Google account, which is only available to those of 13 and older. If YouTube had identified the videos as adults-only, they should have barred anyone under 18 from viewing.

But others in this genre, with titles like “Joker has trouble braking his c— s–ing habit,” based on the Batman nemesis, “Cedric Rapes Harry,” using footage from one of the films based on the children’s novels, and “YTP Peppa Pig Plays Sexual Games” did not carry any age restriction prompt — meaning users of any age could watch them. One of the worst offenders was a ripoff of the “Let it Go” song from Frozen, with the words changed to sing crudely about a sexual act. This video had nearly 2 million views.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Yeah. The Facebook Messenger thing you mentioned is scary. They said they've taken as many -- they've tried to eliminate all these problems. They've talked about that.

You have to I think approve anyone from the parents' Facebook page that you allow on with your kids. Which is certainly a --

GLENN: Okay.

STU: A big firewall. But you never know. These things are going to happen. YouTube Kids is an interesting part of this. Have you followed this sort of controversy that's gone on in the past few months?

GLENN: No. By the way, hang on just a second. You might say there's a firewall and you're protecting your kids. Remember, they're not using the information. They'll never sell it or use it for advertising. But they are mapping who your kid is from six to 13. And Facebook will have your entire child's history. That's significant. Having a six-year period where they've poured themselves out into Facebook. They have all that information to market later. Anyway, go ahead.

STU: It's true. YouTube, obviously everybody knows. YouTube is great. What an incredible service YouTube is. It's free video. You can find almost anything.

GLENN: It's great.

STU: And just like anything else with capitalism, and the Internet is a microcosm of capitalism. There is good, and there is bad there. Like, there's incredible information. You can take classes from MIT. And you can do things --

GLENN: It's amazing.

STU: More incredible -- and the upside overwhelmingly outdoes the downside to me. But I mean, of course, it's also a home of ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's a home of people just getting into fights and hurting each other that people watch for entertainment.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: There's a lot of crap on there too. So YouTube decided to -- to form a YouTube Kids app. One of the reasons they did this was because what was happening was, mom and dad, hey, I need to put the kids down for five minutes in front of the TV. You know, go watch this Disney video or whatever silly video is on there. What would happen, is the algorithm over time, they could click on other things. Maybe it was something the parent had watched earlier, right? So they watched something a little edgier, with swears and everything in it. Kids would click on that when their video was done, and it would bring kids into an adult world, which was not what the intention was.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So they created YouTube Kids, basically to keep all of the adult stuff out. There's only a certain amount of videos that get into YouTube Kids. Again, generally speaking, a good idea.

GLENN: A good idea.

STU: So what happens was, there's a lot of freaking weirdos in the world. A lot of freaking weirdos in the world. And what they were doing was taking beloved children's characters and having them do really twisted weird things.

GLENN: Oh, I've seen this.

STU: People would dress up as princesses and punch people in the face. They would show, hey, Elsa goes to the dentist. And she would be tortured by the dentist in the dentist chair. A clown turns creepy and throws a kid in a washing machine. Like -- and people -- really crude animation where it would be fine for a while and then turn really weird and twist and had wrong. There's a lot of different things --

GLENN: See, this is the problem with -- and there's no brand -- tell me the brand you trust. Tell me the brand that you could put your kids in front of and just walk away.

STU: Yeah. It's -- it's harder and harder to find those, right?

GLENN: Right. Disney Channel used to be that way. I don't trust the Disney Channel. I mean, I'm a long time, you know, advocate of Disney has gone off the rails.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I don't trust the Disney Channel. I don't trust Nickelodeon. I don't trust certainly MTV or any of the networks like Nickelodeon. What can you put your kids in front of?

And just walk away. There's no brand anymore.

STU: Very little.

Well, and this is the thing. And, for example -- one of my favorite programs that I've brought up before, Peppa Pig. Now, Peppa Pig is this little English pig.

GLENN: There's a lot of those twisted Peppa Pig stuff.

STU: A lot of it is -- because it's very crude animation. So people recreate the animation and are able to have Peppa Pig do all sorts of terrible things. And, you know, YouTube has billions of videos they're going through. They're treated with algorithms. I honestly think they do the best they can to try to get these things to be right. What they find is weird things get popular. Weird things get clicked on. And the algorithm says kids like them. And they become more and more popular.

Now, because of this pushback, YouTube has really now cracked down over the past month and tried to get rid of these. But it's an impossible program.

How can you possibly eliminate them? People just post the same videos under different names, from hundreds of different users. There's no way. Some of these -- some of these accounts have millions of millions of subscribers. Subscribers.

And they were just violent videos with kids in them. Kids bloodied faces because they would get hit. And it was acting. These kids weren't necessarily actually being hurt thank God. But what is that? And so there have been reports of people who believe that this is conditioning from weirdo adults. It's -- it's trying to get them to look at won't things because it pleases the adults. And you see adults in the comments, you know, cheering this on and making all sorts of creepy comments.

And this is a kid's program. So you basically can't, right? I mean, obviously, as parents, we would all sit back and say, it's a terrible idea to sit your kid in front of an i Pad and have them click around while you're not standing right behind them, right? We all know that's bad. But we all know the reality of the world is sometimes --

GLENN: It's happening. It's happening.

STU: -- the kitchen is on fire. Sometimes there's an emergency. Sometimes you're on the phone with your insurance company, and you can't have your kids yelling at each other while you're doing it.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: You know, and it's really hard. One of the reasons -- it's interesting. People bash TV and putting your kid in front of a TV. It's becoming much more of the safe space. Where you throw on -- yeah, you throw on, you know -- even Nick Jr. Or, you might get kind of edgy content there. Some stuff you don't like. Your complaints with Disney -- but your complaints with the Disney Channel are nothing compared to what these kids can stumble in on with some random guy in Croatia --

GLENN: No. Disney Channel.

STU: -- making a video for them.

GLENN: No. Disney Channel I would put on so much faster than just handing them the device and say, yeah, just look on YouTube.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But they don't watch television.

STU: Yeah, they don't like --

GLENN: Getting my son to watch a television show now. He gets bored with it now. I don't know.

What? They don't watch them that way. He'll watch for -- it's bizarre. You know that thing with the kids, that little kids. The people who opened toys.

STU: Oh, the unboxing stuff? Oh, gosh.

GLENN: That is weird as hell.

STU: And that stuff, even though it's safe for kids largely, creates weird things in them.

I mean, one of the videos -- some of -- my kids would watch occasional videos of these little kids that review toys. They get these cool toys. They play with them in front of the camera.

It's totally innocent, largely. But, like, the kids get the impression that there are other kids out there getting tons of toys sent to them every day to play with. Brand-new toys. Dozens of toys a week.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And they're like, wait a minute. But Ryan gets those toys. You know, Ryan is some kid -- you know, these -- there's one video, in particular, Ryan's Toys Reviews is a famous one. No knock on Ryan if he happens to be listening as a 6-year-old or whatever he is.

GLENN: Ryan, Stu hates you.

STU: I mean, the family I think is a good family. They like their kid. They made this -- there's nothing wrong with this. But like, they had a video. And I swear they have some deal with McDonald's, in which Ryan is seemingly constantly eating McDonald's in these videos. Which whatever. I have no problem with capitalism like this. You know what, if it's a popular channel, this is a good brand for McDonald's to associate itself with. I love McDonald's as a kid, with or without commercials. Right?

But Ryan takes his little car, he has one of those battery-powered cars. And his parents play like McDonald's with him. They'll pull up to the window. And the window of their house. And they'll put out McDonald's. And he'll drive away with it. And at one point, they made a video about how Ryan was going to drive to McDonald's on his own. Right?

And when that happened, my kids kept asking me, when are we going to be able to drive to McDonald's on our own? The answer is 16 years old. Okay?

(laughter)

But it's putting weird priorities, right?

GLENN: My son --

STU: The same -- one more thing. The same thing we, I think, as adults see other people with their Facebook page and how wonderful their families. And there's never any problems.

GLENN: Yes, yes, yes.

STU: Kids -- wait a minute. You're saying no to me at Toys R Us? I never see anyone say no at Toys R Us. They get everything they want. Why don't I get it?

GLENN: So my son is kind of going through the same thing on -- one of the things that he for a while said he wanted to be. And I was like, no. Was a gamer. But a reviewer of games. And I'm like, no. No.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: No, no, no, no. No, no, no. No. No. If you want to do that on the side and it becomes huge, great. But you're -- no. No.

STU: When you're an adult.

GLENN: When you're an adult, you can think of that. When I'm dead and I don't have to worry about you anymore, fine.

But they watch these -- and it starts with the kids, watching, you know -- you know, opening packages and stuff.

They watch people playing video games.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I --

STU: I don't understand why you don't just play them.

GLENN: Yeah, I just don't get it.

(music)

GLENN: Why don't you go outside and play in the fresh air, you freak!

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.