Glenn talks with Lord Monckton


Evil Conservative Industries...

GLENN: Last night I had dinner, and I don't think they are the same one but last night I sat next to Lord Monckton. This is a guy who was advisor for Margaret Thatcher and the reason why I wanted to bring him on, fascinating to spend a couple of minutes to talk to the guy who is the guy who actually brought Al Gore to court or The Inconvenient Truth, who spearheaded the effort to get a balanced view taught in schools in England. This is the guy who got it done. Lord Monckton, how are you?

MONCKTON: I'm fine, Glenn. And you held up your own end of the conversation very well last night.

GLENN: I'm sure I did. First of all, I have to ask you. Was I -- did I -- I mean, I've never met a Lord before. At any point was I supposed to say, "My lege" or anything like that?

MONCKTON: No, you acted entirely correctly every time you spoke. You conducted the entire dinner kneeling, quite right.

GLENN: Okay, good. So Lord Monckton, you're a guy that -- tell this story. How did this -- how did it happen that now the other side of global warming has to be taught in Great Britain?

MONCKTON: It's a very interesting tale. What happened is that I looked at Al Gore's movie with mounting horror and I identified three dozen scientific errors in it. So I had a weather mate of mine who takes an interest in these matters and also had the money to pay for a court case and I said I thought this film was rubbish. Two weeks later he rang up and said he wanted to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about. And so I said, well, the best thing is that you dish your review, a rather peculiar kind of court case in the high court in London in front of custard faced judges. And he said, right, I'll do it. So we went to the government and said --

GLENN: Hold on, hold on. Lord Monckton, hang on just a second. Stu, would you write this down? It's a very good slam. I need to use custard faced judges from time to time. That's very good. All right, go ahead.

MONCKTON: Yes, okay. So we went to the government. They didn't reply satisfactorily. So we then served papers on them through lawyers and the case came to court and it was very interesting. The first judge who heard the case threw it out without actually watching the movie. So we went to the judge and said, did you watch the movie or didn't you, and he didn't reply. So we were able to demand to get a rehearing in front of another judge also we think somehow chosen by the labor government who we were fighting because they were wanting to put this wretched film into every school in England.

GLENN: Right.

MONCKTON: So the second judge who had in fact been a labor candidate before wanted to see it very much the labor party's way, but what we did was to pester the government scientific spokesman so that they themselves would either have to look scientifically stupid by pretending that Gore's film didn't have inaccuracy or they would have to admit that it was inaccurate. In the end they decided that for the sake of retaining what little scientific credibility the office still has, they better admit this were errors and once they admitted them, the judge, even though he wanted to, couldn't find that Gore's film was accurate.

GLENN: Okay. So you told me last night -- because I said to you, I have no problem with Al Gore's movie being shown in school, as long as the Great Global Swindle or something like that is also shown side by side. Show both sides. Teach both sides. You said that the same thing that happened over in Great Britain can be done here but it requires about $2 million to get it done.

MONCKTON: This is absolutely right. So if any of your listeners out there have got a spare $2 million and you would be willing to take Al Gore on in court, then get in touch with Glenn Beck and he'll get in touch with me and I'll put you in touch with the guy who originally fought some of the early environmental cases 30 years ago who's still in practice. He is now a judge himself.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. You didn't give me your -- you didn't give me your digit so I could ring you.

MONCKTON: Right. Well --

GLENN: Yeah, okay. Wait. Go back and tell the part of the story where you said there is somebody here that -- if I get the story right -- that is an environmentalist or a former environmentalist who is sick and tired of this, that wants it done here and knows how to get it done here.

MONCKTON: That's right. This is John Yaniker (ph) who originally represented the Environmental Defense Fund 35 years ago when they managed to get DDT banned. Now, once he won the case for them, he said to the Environmental Defense Fund, look, what you mustn't do is insist that the ban be applied inside people's houses in these poorer countries because if you ban it even inside houses, lots of children will die of malaria. And he said, I've got scientific papers, I read them all up, which is what will happen. So you mustn't push this too far. Then fired him on the spot and as he left the room, he heard the then head of the Environmental Defense Fund say we would never again employ a lawyer who knows any science.

GLENN: Okay.

MONCKTON: And since then you know what happened. Between 30 and 50 million children died of malaria who would not have died if DDT had still been allowed to be used inside people's houses and it was only two years ago that the World Health Organization finally made a statement saying politics has ruled this debate until now; now we're going to allow the science and the data to take place and we are lifting this ban and encouraging the use of DDT against malaria.

GLENN: Surprise. All right. So this guy was the attorney that got it done and he says now he knows of the way to overturn Al Gore and get the truth taught in schools here in America.

MONCKTON: Absolutely he does indeed. There are a number of different ways this can be done, a number of different courts in which it could be tried and obviously once we know that we've got somebody who can back us to do this, we will then consult with Judge Yaniker (ph) and find the best forum to do this. Interesting as you know that just this morning John Coleman, who is a veteran forecaster in the U.S.

GLENN: Yeah.

MONCKTON: Has actually said that Gore should be prosecuted criminally because he is peddling a false prospective in his generation investment management company by talking all this science, pseudoscientific rubbish, which is absolutely in correct, exaggerated all in the direction of alarm.

GLENN: What do you think -- we're going to have him on here in a few minutes. What do you think of that?

MONCKTON: Well, I've already made that complaint about Gore and James Hansen who has political and financial links with him. James Hansen is a scientist at NASA who has been pushing all sorts of alarmists and again scientifically inaccurate results onto the public. And Hansen made the mistake of issuing a public statement condemning a presentation which I was going to make to both houses of the Kentucky state legislature last year and he hadn't even seen what I was going to say. But he condemned it anyway.

Now, that's not scientific. So I wrote to the administrator of NASA and I said, this conduct is not acceptable; I want it investigated and I think there are financial irregularities behind the conduct of your people in this matter and given that they have financial links with Al Gore. And so they are, in fact, now investigating it. It was referred to the inspector general of NASA who is their internal affairs officer, and he is now looking at this. And if they don't come back to me very soon and say that they have disciplined this man for making unscientific statements when he's a paid public official against a private citizen -- that's what he did -- then I am going to refer this case via diplomatic channels to the U.S. attorney general's office because they are the only office who are allowed to refer investigations to the Securities & Exchange Commission.

GLENN: Lord Monckton, thank you so much. And you say again it's going to take about $2 million to mount a case here in the United States?

MONCKTON: That's right.

GLENN: Is that what it cost you over in --

MONCKTON: Cheaper in the U.K. but here it's much more expensive, a more complicated legal some. So it's better to say, rather than underestimate it, it's going to be the thick end of $2 million anyway.

GLENN: So it's $2 million, not 2 million pounds which now translates to about 14 -- I think it's like $14 trillion U.S. dollars now.

MONCKTON: Yeah, $2 million should see us right. And what I can say is that you will have exactly the same success here as we had there because Gore's film is full of such obvious stupid exaggerations that any judge in the end, when confronted with the facts, will have to find that this film cannot be shown to innocent schoolchildren unless corrections are made.

GLENN: That's fantastic. Thank you very much. Lord Monckton, always great chatting with you.

MONCKTON: Thank you.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.