Newt Gingrich Interview

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. This is the third most listened to show in all of America. My name is Glenn Beck. It's wall-to-wall politics today with some great guests. We have Karl Rove coming up. I want to ask him if you could give somebody advice, who would be the candidate right now that you would like to get into the corner and say, okay, look, you are missing it by 5%; here's what you do. I want to talk to him. Also Mitt Romney will be with us, Rudy Giuliani will be with us, and we have Newt Gingrich on the phone with us now. Mr. Gingrich, how are you, sir?

Pre-order Real Change

Real Change by Newt Gingrich

GINGRICH: I'm doing great. How are you?

GLENN: I'm very good. Glad to have you on. I know that you were on with Mr. Limbaugh last, what, a couple of days ago and you said that we're at the end of the George W. Bush era and end of the Reagan era. He disagreed with you. But in many ways I think you're right because I don't think that there are enough conservatives out there, enough people that can cross over into the conservative camp that understand, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and what real conservative values mean. Is that what you're talking about?

GINGRICH: Yeah, what I'm saying is, and I worked with Governor Reagan when he was a candidate and I worked with him when he was President and I served in the U.S. House at that time and he was a tremendous leader who spent from 1964 to 1980 teaching the country conservative values, creating the framework for his presidency and then had an astonishing presidency. But you can't run a country on nostalgia. You can't simply say, gosh, I wish it was 1980 again. What we have to do for our generation is articulate conservativism, show people how we would solve problems and have better solutions than liberals, not cheaper solutions, not solutions that are kind of liberal-like but genuinely different, effective approaches that apply conservative principles in the 21st century and make them effective in solving problems.

And by the way, when Governor Reagan first ran for office in 1966, he gave a speech called the Creative Society and he said almost exactly that. He said the job of leaders is to provide real solutions based on values that work and that's the test you ought to hold them to. I think our core argument with liberalism is that it doesn't work but in the end big bureaucracy, big unions, big trial lawyers, the Hollywood left represent a future that will not work for America

GLENN: But too many people in America no longer believe that because there's no one out there that is really truly able to communicate the idea of smaller government and what we have is a bunch of -- why I feel so betrayed by the Republican party is they are no longer conservatives. They no longer -- you know what? It's like the Democrats have become the left, the real left, they become full-fledged socialist. I mean, I think John Edwards should just put a star on his little furry cap and the Republicans have become the old Democrats.

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is something to that and one of the reasons I wrote Real Change was that I've been actively involved in looking at this since I was a Sophomore in high school, actively helped build the Republican party in Georgia from 1960 on. And, you know, and I worked since years to help create a majority in the House. And when I look at what happened to that majority and the degree with which Republicans lost their way, it seemed to me the first step is to be in redefining what the roadmap is and the roadmap is towards a market oriented, economic growth oriented personal responsibility oriented model that actually works dramatically better than red tape and bureaucracy and high taxes.

GLENN: So -- and in your book you talk about the solutions on -- I mean, look. We are -- just look at the top of Drudge. Stocks set to plunge today. Inflation rate worst in 17 years. Those are today's headlines. And yet I saw in the Democratic debate last night they were talking about a stimulus package. It's not about a stimulus package. It is about healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs and earmarks completely out of control. If we were a company, our stock would be our dollar and it is collapsing. Do you propose a solution for this that people can actually connect to?

GINGRICH: Sure. First of all you don't want to propose a stimulus package. That's like steroids for athletes. You want an economic growth package and that package ought to start with less government spending, less bureaucracy, it ought to start with lower taxes, it ought to focus on how do we get people to create jobs, how do we compete with China and India successfully, how do we get breakthroughs in the cost of energy so that we can become less and less reliant on the Middle East. I think we need that kind of approach rather than how do I pump up the system in a way that is ultimately going to be very destructive. If all we do is transfer more money to government to hire more bureaucrats to give politicians more power, which is the essence of the Senator Clinton's proposal, we guarantee the country in the long run has lower growth with fewer jobs. This is the Michigan solution. You know, Michigan's a state which has an artificial recession, a recession caused by the Democrats in the state legislature and by the Democratic governor. It is not a state which has had to have this kind of future but at the very time when they had economic weakness, the Democrats raised taxes to hire more bureaucrats and the result is in one recent survey, 40% of the students who are graduating from Michigan and Michigan State have indicated they are going to leave Michigan as soon as they graduate because they have to go find a job outside of the state.

GLENN: Is there a candidate out there that you say, oh, if this guy would just do this one thing, he would be able to pull it off?

GINGRICH: No, I think there are several candidates who have promise and I think that this frankly, this extended competition is good for them. I think they are much better candidates today and have a much clearer sense of their message today than they did three months ago. And whether you are talking about Mitt Romney who legitimately earned a big win yesterday or you are talking about Fred Thompson who has a real shot in South Carolina, Governor Huckabee who I think is a much better candidate than he was three months ago, you know, or Rudy Giuliani who's taken, I think, an enormous gamble. But in my new book Real Change, I have a chapter on what Rudy achieved that is amazing, that when you look at New York today -- and you know this because you know the city so well. New York today is the safest big city in the United States. It had a 75% reduction in crime from 1993 to 2006. If you are in Houston, you have four times as big being involved in a crime than you do in New York City. That's an objective fact that's worth studying and that every political leader in the country ought to be looking at and you have to give Mayor Giuliani credit. That's fundamental change. That's a fundamentally different New York City than it was when he was elected.

GLENN: I remember coming to New York City in the early Eighties before he took over and it was a frightening, frightening place. And I saw it after. You know, it was nothing but hookers and crack dealers in Times Square. Now that is practically Disneyland in Times Square and it is all him. And, you know, I wonder, because we were talking about this last night, how Rudy Giuliani's only getting 3% here and 3% there where he was the frontrunner before and I think that it is probably because most people in America never really understood what he did in New York City. You know, I hear that, you know, oh, we're tired of him talking about New York City. But what he did here in New York City was damn near a miracle.

GINGRICH: Well, it was. I think if I had any advice to offer Mayor Giuliani, it would have been to describe for America what you would do for America and then use the city stories only as backup that you could do it. Because I think what happened was, this is my point about not trying to reinvent the Reagan era but trying to take the principles of Reaganism and apply to 2008. People want to know now: So what are you going to do for America now. And frankly has Mayor Giuliani gone to Philadelphia which has had 3,000 people killed since 1988 and has arguably the worst murder rate in the country. Had he done a major speech in Philadelphia on the number of lives that would have been saved if Philadelphia politicians had followed his.

GLENN: Yeah.

GINGRICH: You know, you go down that kind of a list and he could have had a much more direct impact. Now, the question for him's going to be, does his strategy of going to Florida work, is he able to skip all of these early results and not collapse. I just did an interview early this morning with the Miami radio station and they said he has a very, very big presence in Florida and that they thought he had a very real chance of winning the Florida primary. If he does, then he is right in the middle of the game.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, you look almost like a prophet at this point with the name of your book, Real Change. The thing that drives me nuts is so many people, especially when it comes to Obama, they will say, yeah, we want change. But people don't -- I mean, change is -- you know, going from a steamship to the Zeppelin turned out to be a really bad kind of change. It's not just change for change sake. The name of the book is Real Change. What is that real change?

GINGRICH: Well, let me say that there are three kinds of change. First of all there is the politician who's consultant, a focus who learned to say why didn't you say the word change, I'm for change, let's have change. That has zero meaning. It's, I think, so shallow as to be laughable. Then there are people as you point out like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama who are for the wrong changes. They are for changes that are going to have higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, more red tape, more trial lawyers, more left wing social policies. We have no evidence anywhere on the planet that that model works. And we have every evidence that when it's tried, the economy gets worse, people get more unhappy, the country gets weaker and so bad change is not a good thing, either. But I think what America, the American people understand and what the Republican party has to come to grips with is the current solutions aren't working. The current systems aren't working. Whether you are talking about our energy policy or whether you're talking about what's happening with the failure of the Detroit schools to teach people or whether you're talking about the visa program. You know, there's a grave danger that London will replace New York as the leading financial center in the world. That has a huge economic complication not just for New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut but that has a big economic implication for every American if, in fact, the center of financial activity leaves the U.S. and goes overseas S. It's going to indirectly affect the cost of every bond issued by every city and every state government. It's going to indirectly affect the difficulty of raising capital for every person who wants to start a small business and I think in that sense we need to take seriously what are the real changes we need in order to make sure that New York remains the leading financial center, what are the changes we need to make sure that American workers can compete with China and India successfully, keep their jobs and increase their prosperity. And what are the changes we need to invent the technology of the future so that we can get off of oil as a primary source of energy and be in a hydrogen economy, in an alternative fuels economy, in a conservation economy, in a package that enables us to basically ignore Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq and Russia and Venezuela and just say, fine, if you want to use those petrochemical stops but we don't need to buy them.

GLENN: I'm on a tight schedule today and let me just ask you one quick question before I cut you loose. With what you're seeing in the economy, with what you're seeing in CitiBank and everything else and what I, you know, fear might happen and we would have Democrats come into the White House and congress, how worried are you about our economy and what you think is on the horizon?

GINGRICH: Well, I'm worried about our economy at two totally different levels. I'm worried about it in the short run because there's a grave danger, if you look at the price of oil and the price of gold and if you look at the jump in wholesale prices last year, there's a grave danger we're going to start reinventing the Seventies and have a kind of stagflation where we're not growing economically but we have inflation. That's the worst of all worlds because, you know, you can't reduce interest rates in order to get the economy growing because you have to worry about inflation. And if you raise interest rates enough to deal with inflation, you crush the economy. And that's what happened to us under Jimmy Carter. If we are drifting into that kind of policy, we are in big trouble.

The second thing I worry about is longer term. If we're going to compete with China and India in a world of dramatic scientific change, we have to have schools, we have to have young people learning math and science, we have to have a tax code that encourages savings and investing and job creation. We have to have a tax code that encourages buying new equipment and new technology and we have to streamline our red tape and our litigation so that it's desirable to create jobs in the U.S. I think you have both the short-term, how do I get through the next few months, and you have a long term, how do I make sure that the policies I adopt to get through the next few months actually move me towards being more competitive and being more energy independent because those are the two keys to our having a healthy economy over the next 15 years.

GLENN: Author of the book Real Change, Newt Gingrich. Thanks, Newt.

GINGRICH: Thank you.

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.