Author Believes This Communist Government Deliberately Murdered 3 Million People

We will probably never have a final tally on how many people have died under communist regimes. But an author believes that Stalin’s Soviet Union deliberately set out to starve more than 3 million Ukrainian peasants – and she’s written a book detailing her evidence.

In “Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine,” professor and author Anne Applebaum laid out her research showing that the Soviet Union methodically starved the people of Ukraine by sealing the borders, cutting off access to any available food and forcing them to live on grass, tree bark, pets and worse.

“This should be everywhere,” Glenn said of the history detailed in the book. “Nobody knows it.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I'm really excited to have this woman on. Her name is Anne Applebaum. She has written a book that most people have never even heard of this. This is one of the most powerful stories that I have ever heard. When we were on Fox, we did a special on -- on this particular topic. And I could not believe the number of people from the Ukraine that wrote us or would stop me in the street and hug me and cry and say, "I can't believe somebody's finally -- are you kidding me?

This should be everywhere. Nobody knows it.

Now, Ann is an interesting woman, because she has all kinds of credentials. Yale. Everything else. She's worked everywhere. Economist, et cetera, etcetera. But she is also now a professor in London. And she runs Arena, a program on disinformation and the 21st-century propaganda. I would love to have time in our interview to talk to her about that as well.

The name of her book is Stalin's War on the Ukraine. Red Famine.

And she is with us now. Hello, Anne, how are you?

ANNE: Fine, thanks.

GLENN: Most people don't even know this story at all. And it is -- it's shocking when you hear it. Why has it been covered?

ANNE: Well, I should say first what the story is. The story is -- my book tells the story of an artificial famine. That means a mass starvation that was created by the Soviet state in the early 1930s. And although it affected many people in the Soviet Union, it was particularly targeted on Ukrainians, in an attempt to quell Ukraine's desire for independence and to eliminate the possibility of peasant rebellion. It was carried out.

Which we can talk about if you want. It was a long -- long buildup to it, including lots of disinformation and fake news, as we would now call it. And used HEP smeary grainy peasants. And then it was carried out by Soviet -- Soviet Ukrainian Russian bureaucrats. It was then covered up. Very, very deliberately. So much so, that even the census -- the Soviet census which -- you know, which counted how many people there were in each part of the country, covered up the missing people of Ukraine. It was -- there was one census that was carried out, that was suppressed, that showed the real numbers. And then another one was carried out that had fake numbers.

So it was very deliberately repressed and not discussed for many days, actually. It's only been possible recently to go back and look at archives and understand exactly what happened.

GLENN: So this story has ramifications today, because I think some things like this -- you point out at the end of your book a similar thought that this is -- this is kind of repeating itself with the disinformation and -- and right with the people of Ukraine. If you don't understand this, you may not understand why the people of Ukraine are very, very worried about people like Putin and -- and those who want to bring back the former Soviet Union or something like it.

So go back to the beginning.

When -- when Stalin came in with Lenin, they collectivized all of the farms, and it didn't work.

ANNE: Well, they didn't do that immediately. The collectivization began in 1929, by which the time Lenin was dead. But it was Stalin's initiative to repress the countryside.

And what collectivization meant was that ordinary people lost their property. So the state took over their farms and forced them to join state farms.

And many people resisted doing this. They didn't want to do it. They didn't want to give up their land. They didn't want to give up their cattle. They didn't want to give up their own tractors and give things up. But they were either coerced or forced or persuaded to do it.

GLENN: Or killed.

ANNE: Or killed. Well, and in some places, there was a very open rebellion against it. People actually took up arms and weapons. And they began shooting at Soviet commissars. And this, of course, is what alarmed Stalin.

GLENN: So it was my understanding -- and I could be wrong on this. It was my understanding that at least in Russia proper, the peasants went and pretty much killed the farmers because a lot of the farmers didn't want to go along with it and took the land. So nobody really even understands how to really farm. And so it made things much worse.

Is that true or not?

ANNE: Well, it caused an enormous amount of chaos. It happened a little bit different in different places. And some joined the farms voluntarily. And some did not. But what it did was it caused enormous chaos in the countryside. It disorganized the entire agricultural economy.

But it also made it very easy for the state to begin to coercively collect food. And this is what laid the groundwork for the famine.

So the -- because food was all centralized, it meant that the state could send grain collectors who could come in and confiscate food. And the famine that was caused in 1932 and 1933 was caused by that.

So there was this atmosphere of chaos. People began to starve. And then the state began to literally remove food from people's homes. This wasn't about the weather. It wasn't about some kind of pestilence.

It was literally people came into peasant's homes. They took their food and confiscated it and left them to starve.

GLENN: It's -- in some ways, it's very much like the great leap forward with -- with Mao. What he did.

ANNE: Yes, very similar. Very similar.

The Chinese had a similar -- very similar thing happened in China.

GLENN: But there is, if I'm not mistaken, there is a difference here with the Ukraine. When did they start sending in the Russians to, you know, Russianize, if you will, the Ukraine? Was it at this time?

ANNE: Well, so Russiaification, which wasn't so much about sending in Russians, but about encouraging the use of the Russian language and sort of discouraging the use of the Ukrainian language, this did begin in the immediate aftermath of the famine. Because the famine was followed by a major attack on the Ukrainian intellectual league. So the artists, the writers, the scientists, the museum curators, these were all -- they were all arrested. Many of them were killed. Many of them were sent to the gulag. The labor camps.

So the Ukrainian elite was eliminated. And in its place, Russians or Russian speakers were replaced. So the idea was to eliminate Ukraine or the nation to sort of suppress it. I mean, they didn't really eliminate it altogether. But they suppressed the elite. They eliminated the most active part of the peasantry, and that made it easier to Sovietize it so that it became a willing part of the Soviet Union and not a problem for someone.

GLENN: So now Stalin is -- his philosophy is, you know, you didn't produce enough grain to pay us, let alone feed yourself. It doesn't matter. We're taking the grain.

Is that the idea? Or does he intend --

ANNE: Yes, that was the idea. That was the idea. They took -- they confiscated grain. And then for Ukraine, they made a series of special rules so that people were not allowed to leave Ukraine. They blocked the border of the republic.

GLENN: Now, was his intent to kill the population? Because he killed an astronomical number of people in a year?

ANNE: Yes, he did.

Yes, it's my contention in the book, and I've pulled together the evidence, that he intended to kill people in Ukraine. He wanted to suppress the peasantry and to remove its most active members. And he intended to kill people.

GLENN: And how many did he kill?

ANNE: The numbers are approximately 4 million.

GLENN: Jeez.

ANNE: And then -- then there -- you know, then depending on how you count, you can add others. But that's the. Number from 1931 to 1934.

GLENN: Okay. So, Anne, I don't want to compare things. Because you're comparing monsters to monsters. But even Hitler was not that efficient of killing 4 million people in one year.

Is it because the Soviets survived and buried this, or why is it that it's not out?

ANNE: They survived -- look, if Hitler had stayed in power, we might not know about the Holocaust. That's how it works. So Stalin stayed in power. His successors stayed in power. It was many, many decades before archives were open and real history could be done in Ukraine or anywhere else in the Soviet Union.

And in a world before the internet and before cable television and before talk radio, it was much easier to keep stories separate -- you know, just to suppress stories and prevent them from getting out.

Special efforts, I should say, were made to prevent western journalists and other journalists from writing about the famine. People who tried to write about it were at risk of being expelled from their job. And at that time, all news that came out of Moscow was censored. And there were one or two journalists who were deliberately collaborating. There were also some journalists who tried to expose it. But it was much easier at that time to clamp down on the story.

But not only to keep it from other Soviet citizens, but to keep it from the world.

GLENN: Duranty HEP was probably one of the more famous people that was collaborating and misled America. And said, you know, none of this is really happening. You're being lied to.

ANNE: Yeah. So the two important journalists of the story, one of them was Walter Duranty, who was actually British, but he was at that time working for the New York Times, who wrote a famous piece saying, there is no famine. Russians are hungry, but not starving. It's all been exaggerated.

And then there's another journalist, a Welsh journalist, called Garrett Jones HEP on sort of somewhat -- he said he was going to visit a tractor factor at hashy. (?) started walking down the tracks and actually saw within Ukraine at the height of the famine in the spring of 1933. And he wrote about it actually in -- in the British press. After he left.

But the question of prestige, he didn't have the clout that Durant had. And also, it's important to remember, (?) people were worried about Hitler, who was just then coming to power. People were looking to do deals with the Soviet Union. People didn't want to hear that it was a catastrophe. Interesting, if you (?) and this applies to other countries too. It's almost always a reflection of our own politics. You know, American politics at that moment, nobody (?)

GLENN: So, Anne, I want to stop there and then come back. (?) I think there are things that people don't want to hear. But Putin is -- is cut from this same cloth. And we'll go there, when we come back.

GLENN: Talking to Anne Applebaum. Her latest book is called Red Famine: Stalin War on Ukraine.

STU: And I know (?), but before we move on. You talk in the book about some of the real horror stories from this period. People who were imprisoned and forced to only drink snow that was dripping through and melting into, you know, their storage area where they were being kept. We've heard stories over the years of cannibalism and, you know, children being shot as they went to try to grab potatoes to eat. Are these stories largely true? Has any of it been exaggerated? What did you find?

ANNE: No, I found a lot of it was true. The cannibalism stories are in the archives. In that, local policemen would be told about the stories. They would investigate them. Sometimes they would arrest people as canals. And that's part of the public (?) record. The extraordinary thing is that they were recording what was happened (?) there was no particular reaction to the extraordinary phenomenon of multiple cannibals suddenly appearing in what had been a very law-abiding part of the world up until now. There's a huge memoir and oral history as well, I should say, and I use quite a lot of that in the book, to give people subscriptions and how think emotionally (?), but really, quite a lot of the worst stories are, as I said, they're part of the archive. They're part of the police record. There's no doubt that these things happened.

GLENN: I have just about a minute here before another break. But tell me, who was it that was shooting? Were they crans shooting crans? How did they -- how did you get to be on Stalin's side?

ANNE: Well, usually what there were in each village or each part of the country, there were these activist (?) and carry out this repression. And the teens very often had Russian members or people from the cities. But very often, they had some local Ukrainian collaborate rarities as well. And this is very (?) interesting. The question being, why would people collaborate? And that's actually the story about how you create hatred over a long period of time. You know, there was a kind of drumbeat of hatred towards the so-called ghoul axe. (?) blocking our revolution. And hiding our grain from us. And people had this propaganda drummed into their head over and over again. (?) it was in their interest to believe it. Or they were hungry. To they agreed to go along with it. So you did have some local people collaborating with outsiders in effectively the murder of their neighbors. If you go into somebody's house (?) they're not allowed to leave. Then you know they're going to die.

GLENN: You can see where I'm going to take this next, on the hatred that she just talked about. It's happening all over the world. It's happening in Russia. It's happening here in America. The lesson that we can learn from Red Famine. When we come back.

GLENN: What ills America now is hatred. And hatred and distrust on both sides. And we're currently looking into Russia. And you're on one or the other side. You know, Trump was luding with Russia. And, you know, he's a bad guy because of it. Or Hillary Clinton was turning a blind eye to Russia. And she was working with the Russians on that dossier. Blah, blah.

We keep going back and forth. And it's dividing us into Democrat, Republican. Instead of taking a step back. Wait a minute. What do both of those stories have in common? And that's Vladimir Putin and Russia.

And as we have been talking about for a while on this program, Russia's intent is to cause chaos and hatred between us. And, you know, for any role that we play in that, we're going to be held eternally responsible. Because we're going to tear each other apart. And if you introduce hunger and fear, it's going to happen a lot faster than it's happening right now.

We're talking to Anne Applebaum. She wrote the book, Read Famine. She writes on page 358, (?) 80 years later, the Russian FSB, the institutional successor of the KGB, continues to demonize its opponents using propaganda and disinformation. The nature and form of hate speech in Ukraine has changed, but the intentions of those who employ it have not. In the past, the Kremlin uses language to set people against one another, to create first and second class citizens, to divide and distract.

In 2014, Russia's state military described Russian forces carrying out an invasion of Crimea in eastern Ukraine, as -- as suppress patriots. And those fighting fascists and Nazis. (?) an extraordinary (?) complete with fake stories that Ukrainian nationalists have crucified a baby, for example. Fake photographs followed. Not only inside Russia. But on Russia state-sponsored media around the world.

This is happening. And it's not happening just in Ukraine. It's happening to us as well. And we have got to separate ourselves from it.

And Applebaum joins us again. Red Famine. What do we learn now, Ann, from this? Well, I think (?) you pointed to the main link between the past and the present.

The same kinds of propaganda campaigns and the same kind of hate campaigns that the Soviet state ran in the past, are now being run by the Russian government in the present. I -- if I had some early warning of it, or many (?) I travel a lot in the Baltic states. And I saw this beginning several years ago.

The attempt to -- the backing of extremist political parties, mostly far right parties in the region. The use of -- using the tools provided by social media to target particular kinds of audiences. The creation of fake stories and so on.

That's actually been in the Russian intelligence repertoire for some time now. The fact that we only noticed in the United States doesn't mean it's been around for a while.

GLENN: People don't understand. I know you run a program, an arena on disinformation (?) people don't understand that this is -- you know, it sounds like old school Soviet stuff. That millennials are not aware of at all. And people don't understand, we're being manipulated. And not just by Russia. But we're manipulating each other.

And it's happening. And no one thinks their side is part of it. And all sides are part of it.

ANNE: Yes. I think some sides have made -- have set out to be more manipulative than others.

GLENN: Yes.

ANNE: I would say, you began a few minutes ago by talking about mistakes made by mainstream broadcast media.

I mean, at least those media have a procedure by which they admit mistakes.

GLENN: Yes.

ANNE: And they say those are mistakes. (?) he doesn't take them back. When he says things that are dishonest.

So there are some differences here. But, yes, I think the -- the system whereby both foreign actors and domestic actors are able to insert false stories into -- you know, into people's Facebook feeds, into what people see on -- you know, on the internet now is certainly -- it makes -- all these things are much faster and easier to do than they were in the past. So these Soviet disinformation campaigns would take many years. They would plan them. (?) now it can be done in a matter of minutes. It's very, very cheap. It's very easy. As you know, particularly well, it's not just the Russians who do it. Anybody can do it who has a little bit of money and a little bit of spare time.

GLENN: So when Romney was running conservatives like me, I could not -- I couldn't get the left to listen and say, no, no, Putin is a bad guy, and Russia is refighting the Cold War. Now that Trump is in office, you can't convince the -- the conservatives that Russia is bad.

How do we -- how do we lock ourselves to some principles here on Putin and get the word out that he is a very dangerous character that is, you know, trying to destabilize the entire West and correct the great mistake that he saw as the end of the old Soviet empire?

SPEAKER: Yes. Well, all you have to listen (?) that's what his officials say they're doing. They -- they openly want to unpick international institutions. They're opposed to the European Union. They're opposed to NATO. They're opposed to the American -- the transatlantic alliance. (?) if American troops are gone from Europe, that would give that much more leeway to (?), I mean, I suppose it was hard to take them seriously in the past. Because economically, they're not a great power anymore. And they even seem to be shrinking. But what we I think didn't reckon is the -- (?) how inexpensive it is nowadays to do -- to do propaganda and political campaigns. With very little money, they can support far right extremist groups. They've gotten interest now in gun clubs. I would be interested to know what their relationship is with the it, Florida (?) and they're looking forward to support extremist, anti-systemic and anti-fascist groups all over in Europe. And I suspect they're doing it in the US too. So pay attention to what they say and what they do. It should be enough to convince whatever American of whatever their politics. That this is something we need to be aware of. We need to be thinking about. These are -- this is an anti-Democratic -- an anti-American regime.

GLENN: The -- the main guy here for the alt-right, I'm trying to remember his name. Spencer. Yeah, Richard Spencer. His wife is the English translator for Aleksandr Dugin, who if you think Putin is scary, Dugin is even more frighting.

ANNE: Dugin is the ideological who has created also completely contentious vision of Russia as some conservative leader or some kind of favor (?) anybody who knows Russia well and has been there and knows anything particularly about the Russian elite knows this is an entirely phony picture of how they actually -- of how they lived their lives. But he has seen what he perceives to be as a weakness. And we encourages this idea that Russia can encourage some kind of antimodern -- anti-Democratic conservative revival.

GLENN: So, an an, how do we accomplish one thing? (?) you said earlier that people didn't want to look at this. (?) we haven't changed as people. In fact, I think it's becoming easier and easier for us just to look at the news that we want to look at.

And, in fact, we have things like Facebook that through algorithms, is helping us disconnect from anything that disagrees with us. How do we -- how do we break this

ANNE: Well, one -- so (?), first of all, I think it's important for people to understand that they live in echo chambers. (?) that were recommended to you because the algorithm thinks you will like it. Or even just because your friends think you will like it. And so everybody has -- I think it's kind of a civic duty to pay attention to what the other side is saying, even though you disagree with it. It's a civic duty to use critical thinking and (?) does it come from a news organization that facts check and that admits mistakes when it makes them? Or does it come from some kind of propaganda outlet? I think we're all now, as never before, responsible for understanding the political world that we live in and trying to make sense of it. And also, by the way, teaching children about it.

I think younger people, in particular, need to learn how to read the internet and how to know what it is that they're seeing, that's true and that's not. It would help a lot of people that read history as well. Because some of this is new because technology is new and some of it is old, as you would discover if you read my book.

GLENN: Yeah, the plans are exactly the same. The technology is (?) for those who wish --

ANNE: Exactly. The technology makes it -- the phenomenon of echo chambers has also changed things a little bit. It means it's much harder for people to -- harder for people to feel decade to those who are somehow on the other side.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANNE: Unless it's just to denounce them. The internet enables new kinds of identity. You now identify with a group you recognize online. It doesn't it doesn't have to be only online. (?) who you see on TV. It gives you a sense of personal identity, as well as giving you some information.

GLENN: What sticks out is the way Stalin used traitor. And we're hearing that -- we're hearing that now on both sides of the aisle. If you don't toe your party's line, if you have a party, if you don't toe your party's line, you can be called traitor and enemy and everything else. And, I mean, that -- that has a long history.

ANNE: The fact that the American president (?) is a kind of breakthrough. That is a Stalinist phrase. It gave anybody who knows history, a real feeling of chill and fear. Because that's --

GLENN: It did me.

ANNE: That was the kind of language that was used to demonize people and was used to eventually kill them in the past.

GLENN: Ann Applebaum, thank you so much.

ANNE: Thank you. (?)

STU: The book is called Red Famine. Stalin's war on Ukraine. By an Applebaum. It's definitely worth a read. We did a documentary on this back when we were on Fox that covered this as the documentary. And just attempting to find pictures to support (?) was incredibly difficult. The amount of research that goes into this book is really impressive. And she found, I mean, amazing photos and real-life accounts of what happened at that time. And it's really in-depth. And it's one of the most important stories that I think a person who thinks of themselves of well-informed doesn't know.

GLENN: It's a big piece of history.

STU: Really big.

GLENN: Big piece of history. We all know what the Nazis did. So many of us don't know what the Russians did. And this is just an absolute horror show. And as she says in the last part of her book, it's repeating herself. Dugin, Putin, they are doing it again.

And we must learn for -- from history, or we will repeat it.

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.