Jonah Goldberg Interview



Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg


Also see: Glenn's Recommended Reading List

GLENN: Putting the radio back into Radio City, from Midtown Manhattan in Rockefeller Plaza, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. I'm glad you're here. Jonah Goldberg, who has been a frequent guest on the program, especially the last couple of weeks, friend of the program, he's the author of the number one New York Times Best Seller, Liberal Fascism, is on the phone with us. Jonah, I called you when I found out you were number one -- I think it was on Wednesday. You were hard at work. You were out in California -- to congratulate you on being a number one New York Times Best Seller. I couldn't be happier if it were happening to me. You so deserve a number one best seller on this particular book. Congratulations.

GOLDBERG: Glenn, I cannot begin to tell you how happy I am to you and your listeners. I was very happy with where I was on the list. But it was after the yeoman work that you did on your radio show and, of course, on the TV show that catapulted me to number one. So, you know, let me promise right here and now that I'm going to mow your lawn and wash your car for the foreseeable future. I am incredibly indebted to you and eternally grateful.

GLENN: Please, please, please. Jonah, let me ask you this.

GOLDBERG: Yes.

GLENN: Because you debuted at number 3, did you not?

GOLDBERG: I debuted at 10 and then the following week went up to 3 and then ran out of books.

GLENN: These publishers, they honestly do not believe that conservatives can read.

GOLDBERG: No, that's right. They were -- Random House was, in effect, getting out of this business, of conservative book publishing when this book skyrocketed up and I think it's sort of shaking up a lot of the assumptions of the publishing establishment that, you know, conservative books still sell, that people want to read this stuff and that it's not all sort of, you know, it's not all the Charlie Rose that read books.

GLENN: It just, isn't it amazing, Jonah. Do you live in Washington?

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. Isn't it amazing when you come up to New York and you deal with the New York elite how they just, they just, it's almost like they talk to you as if you're, you know, autistic. You know, it's like, "Okay, Jonah, okay, well, we'll do that, we'll see. Can you make the words a little smaller? Because I don't know if people like you are going to read this. That's an awfully big word."

GOLDBERG: Well, I grew up on the upper west side of Manhattan and we were basically -- the Goldbergs, we were one of the very few politically conservative families around and we were sort of like Christians in ancient Rome. You know, you have to sort of, you hide in Riverside Park and you draw a little C in the dirt to see if the other guy's a conservative, too, and then you meet and try to talk about how you actually like Ronald Reagan.

GLENN: Right, right. Keep it down.

GOLDBERG: I grew up with all of that. I'm very used to it and it's never -- it never ceases to be frustrating.

GLENN: Yeah, and it never ceases to amaze me how -- let me rephrase this. Let me ask you this: I believe that -- I'm beginning to believe that these people in Washington, these Progressives are not this stupid when it comes to the economy. When people are celebrating and saying, oh, my gosh. You know, when Fannie Mae yesterday announces, what was it, a $3.65 billion loss in the fourth quarter alone, then says they have more losses on the way, they've got $700 billion in loans and they say 20% of them are already in default. So you know what's coming. How the liberals and the Progressives in Washington celebrate and say, oh, my gosh, you guys need to take on more debt. Jonah, talk me down from the tree where these guys -- tell me that they're this stupid. Tell me that they're not intentionally trying to take down our economy to be able to implement all of the things that they want to implement and make us into one giant socialist state.

GOLDBERG: Well, you know, I don't think that in their heart of hearts they think that's what they're doing but that doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.

GLENN: So then your case would be that they're that stupid.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, cognitive dissidence. It's not quite Leninist but, you know, Lenin has this phrase, the worse, the better. The worse things got, the more support they would get. And I think that sort of thought runs through a lot of the Democratic party these days, particularly because they want to make this a change election, they know if the economy gets worse, they'll do better and so they see nothing wrong with talking down the economy when a bad economy will hurt the Republicans, not them. And I think we see that in things that, you know, Harry Reid says all the time, we see that in the sort of glee with which the mainstream press is reporting that we're going to go into a recession, you know, which they know becomes in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

GLENN: Well, you know what, Jonah, do you watch or listen to my program very often? Because I am leading the charge on I think we are in deep, deep trouble economically.

GOLDBERG: No, I think -- I'm not saying that they're wrong necessarily but I don't think you were happy about it.

GLENN: Okay. No, yes, yes, you're right about that. I'm terrified out of my mind about it, yes. Okay. First of all, because I want to talk to you about something entirely different.

GOLDBERG: Sure.

GLENN: Another article you wrote, but I've got to ask you this, or at least maybe congratulate you on this. You are the worst person in the world with Keith Olbermann.

GOLDBERG: Again, yes, I think two more and I'm in eighth.

GLENN: What were the worst person in the world for?

GOLDBERG: It was a clip from your show which they took off context.

GLENN: What a surprise.

GOLDBERG: And Olbermann basically says I called FDR and Obama Hitler. That's not what I said. I mean, you were there. You know we were constantly defining our terms and saying what we were talking about and all of that. And then, you know, Olbermann says, "Goldberg still doesn't understand what fascism is, he still thinks it's like socialism, he doesn't even know that fascists were beating up socialists in the streets in Italy." And, you know, the response to that is, okay well, you know, Stalin beat up and murdered several million socialists. Does that mean he was antisocialist? Does that mean he was a fascist? Hitler killed a bunch of Nazis. Does that mean he's not a Nazi? I mean, it's this no-nothing kind of sheep Sophomoric scoring that you come to expect from someone like Olbermann.

GLENN: It's really disheartening to see that this guy, especially on debate nights, does well in the ratings.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

GLENN: He is a growing force and, you know, God bless him. I mean, freedom of speech. You have a right to do that. It's disheartening because he is so full of opinion and his -- I mean, a lot of his stuff comes from blogs. It's not even good sources. And then when you see something like that. Even me, man, I'm a rodeo clown. I'd never run with a story like that.

GOLDBERG: Yeah. Beck I'd never run -- you can't take things out of context but this guy's a growing force and truly a propaganda machine.

GOLDBERG: What drives me crazy, I'm a free speech guy. I don't mind having lots of different voices on television, the media.

GLENN: Me, neither.

GOLDBERG: It's great you want to have the O'Reillys, the Hannitys, all of that is great. Opinion is great. I have no problem with it. My problem with Olbermann is that MSNBC cast him as a straight newsman whenever they want to and his fans in the quote/unquote main street press are hailing him as the new Edward R. Murrow.

GLENN: I know.

GOLDBERG: Whatever he is, he is not that. Certainly not what they think he had war R. Murrow was. He's not a straight newsman and he gets to have it both ways and, you know, the conservative talkers, they have to be very up front. You know, they're conservative. They're giving their opinion and it would never occur to, you know, the news networks to run them as anchors as well.

GLENN: There's no way anyone would run me as an anchor. There's no way -- you know what's amazing, there's no way that they would put Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly at Fox over to ask questions during a debate.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, they know there's a difference between Brit Hume and O'Reilly and I think they have no clue that there's a difference between Keith Olbermann and Tom Brokaw.

GLENN: It's a frightening trend. I want to talk to you, this goes to the point of your book, Liberal Fascism. Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is liberals need to know their history. You need to know where you came from. You need to be able to see that there were real nefarious people involved. Conservatives need to do it as well. You need to look at history to know where you're going.

GOLDBERG: That's right. And, you know, conservatives understand that, you know, they've got skeletons in their closet. Liberals just seem to always think that right now at this very moment, they are the good guys, that they are not responsible or they don't have to worry about the fact that their predecessors also thought they were the good guys and did some really terrible things.

GLENN: Now, you have a new article out, and tell me the connection to Obama, to Weather Underground because it's kind of shifting sand here on the connection. It's not a real strong connection, right?

GOLDBERG: Right. Basically Obama, when he was coming up in Chicago politics, one of the people that you sort of have to go and kiss the ring of is this guy, Bill Ayers, who is a professor at the University of Illinois and sort of a local powerhouse in Progressive politics in Chicago and he's a former member of the Weather Underground. He was a bomb maker for them. He claims responsibility for sending bombs, attacking all sorts of government institutions. The Weather Underground declared war openly on the United States of America, has blood on its hands and Ayers --

GLENN: They called for -- they actually said -- now, was it this guy who said it or just the Weather Underground that said, kill your parents -- what was the quote? I read it in --

GOLDBERG: I don't have it right in front of me but it's kill your parents, kill your family, you know, attack the government, something like that, that's where it's at. And that has been widely attributed to Bill Ayers himself. And when he was asked by the New York Times on total irony on September 11th, 2001 about his work making bombs for the Weather Underground, they asked him if he had any remorse and he said, no, I wish I had done more. And, you know, that was the same day a couple of hours later that the Pentagon actually gets blown up, all these attacks. And, you know, can't be held accountable for the bad timing. But he was unapologetic, as far as I know remains unapologetic and there seems to be no cost for these former radicals to sort of reenter polite liberal society and be treated with respect and deference and, you know, imagine -- I mean, imagine if some guy was even remotely connected to bombing a church during the civil rights, you know, era.

GLENN: But let's just say a bomb maker, a bomb maker.

GOLDBERG: Yeah. For the right there is never any forgiveness, and I'm not saying there should be any forgiveness for a guy who has anything to do with blowing up a church. But my point is that there is this assumption that anyone too far to the right is permanently illegitimate but anyone who's too far to the left, well, you know, they were young, they were passionate, they cared too much and that it's okay to sort of have this segue. And academia and the universities are full of these people, these former radicals, Weather Underground, FDS, Black Panthers, fan of the Black Panthers. And the Black Panthers who Hillary Clinton was a fan of, the liberal elites these days were probably fans of in their youth. They were an openly fascistic terrorist organization, declared terror on the United States in the name of racial superiority, who ambushed cops and shot them in cold blood in the back, who murdered, you know, people willy-nilly, and yet we have Hollywood making pro Black Panther movies, Tom Wolfe writes about the radical sheep of the Black Panthers who go to a cocktail party on the upper west side of Manhattan. I mean, imagine having a cocktail party for Klansmen. I mean, there is an enormous double standard in the culture that the further you move to the left, you may be misguided or wrong but you are never evil, you are never bad and the further you move to the right, the closer you get to pure evil.

GLENN: You know, you were talking about, imagine a cocktail party for Klansmen. I think they are fundraisers for Robert Byrd. I think that's what they're called now. Jonah, congratulations again on the book Liberal Fascism, number one New York Times Best Seller. Nobody deserves it more than you do. No book more importantly deserve it more than that and I encourage anybody who hasn't picked this book up yet to please pick it up. It is number one on the New York Times.

I know you're a conservative. So it's hard for you to read other than "Sam I Am."

GOLDBERG: Well, maybe we'll get some hand puppets and we'll --

GLENN: We'll act it out for them, that's great. Jonah, thank you very much. Congratulations.

GOLDBERG: You're the man.

GLENN: Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism. I have to tell you, the best thing about this audience and thank you so much for being a member of it, is that you are curious, that you are -- you are looking for answers. You are not just looking for the typical answer, that you are engaged on trying to figure things out. You know, I'm so encouraged to hear from listeners from both sides of the aisle that listen to this program and say, "You know what, Glenn, I mean, I used to believe this; I don't think I believe this anymore. I think I'm -- I can't be a Republican. I don't know what conservatives even stand for anymore because they're so tied to the Republican party. I don't know, you know, about liberals, what do they stand for anymore. They've just become Democrats, they're just selling their soul to the devil." Find out the truth. Find out what's really going on. Find out what you really believe in. And I've got to tell you, that is this audience.

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.