Working the Polls

GLENN: You look at the polls that have come out. One of the huge stories coming out of New Hampshire is what happened to the polls. They let us down at almost every single possible term but this time everyone was sure it was right. You should have picked up a copy of An Inconvenient Book before the elections. No, you should have because then you'd know, don't trust any of them. Reporters are desperately trying to figure out how it's possible that every single poll was so incredibly wrong, ranging from 5 to 13 points off, predicting an Obama landslide. How is that possible? We spent a whole chapter on this. This is something Stu's been on for, how long have you been on the poll thing, Stu? This drives you crazy.


 


STU: Yeah. I just hate how much influence they have on us. A while, yeah.


 


 GLENN: And Stu's been looking into it when we were discussing all the different chapters in the book. He was like, please, polls, polls, polls, polls, polls. The problem with the polls that the news never mentions is the amount of problems with the polls. But also how little the people answering them actually know about any of the subjects, how much power their answers actually hold. One theory being thrown in is the spiral of silence. Try this one on for size. It's something that usually affects conservatives. It's one of the reasons that people believe that John Kerry, you know, showed in the exit polls that he was winning. We put the results in the book in case, you know, you wanted to see them in detail. But here are the exit polls. In Iowa Kerry by one. The actual result, Bush by 1/10th. Nevada, Kerry by 1.4. The actual, Bush by 2.6. New Mexico, 4.2. Actual, Bush by .8. Ohio, Kerry by 6.5. Actual, 2.1. Minnesota, Kerry by 14.3. Kerry by 3.5. I mean, it just goes on and on and on. What happens is the media reports how fantastic the Democrat is. Oh, my gosh, the Democrat is so fantastic and how the hate mongering conservative is doing nothing but hate, nothing but hate mongering. So when a pollster calls and asks who are you going to vote for, you don't want to look like a hate monger. So you say the Democrat. But when it comes down to it, when you're in that polling booth all by yourself, you wind up pulling the lever for the person that you really support. Spiral of silence. People just don't want to say their opinions. I know this is true with conservatives. I don't know about liberals, but conservatives feel this way. You just -- how many times have you sat and just shut your mouth and not said anything because you know the whole room will attack you if you do? There's no way for you to win. So you just go along with it.


 


 I had dinner with an Oscar winner, a guy who you wouldn't believe is afraid to speak out. I had dinner with him, what, about a month ago, month and a half ago? He said, "Every time I go to work, every time I'm sitting in a makeup trailer, he said, I sit there and I listen to this garbage." Most people don't know that he's a conservative. He said, "I sit there in that trailer and I just shake my head and I just don't, I don't know what to say." He said, "There are days that I just, I snap." And I said, that is not the truth. The rest of the time I just smile and nod. I know I do it. I sit at CNN and I listen to people talking back and forth and if I'm alone in the room, everybody's talking, I just shut my mouth. Once in a while I'll just have to say, it's not the way it is. Spiral of silence. A lot of conservatives do it. You know it. You're a conservative. I mean, sometimes you don't even bother telling your friends the truth.


 


 You are also going to hear about the Bradley effect. It's named after Tom Bradley who is the former mayor of Los Angeles, ran for governor in California back in 1982. Well, here's a black guy running against a white guy. The pre-election polls had him way out in front. The exit polls had him way out in front as well. So much that the media called the election in his favor. Of course, if you know exit polls, you know the end of the story. The exit polls were wrong and the win went with the white guy. This is what one of the pollsters told me last night, one of the guys who studies polls. He told me that this is what happened with Obama. It was racism. People said they would vote for the black guy but when they get in there, they are just, they just don't want to -- you know, may I just -- ADD moment here. May I just say that I think maybe there's a possibility that it may have been just that they were embarrassed to say they backed a Republican? I mean, it was California. I mean, it's more embarrassing so say you would vote for a Republican than you wouldn't vote for a black guy in California, isn't it? What? Yeah, yeah, you are a racist and everything, but you're a Republican? Pollsters believe white people will say they support a black candidate even when they really don't because it's so politically correct. Do you know a single person like that? I'm going to ask a honest question. Do you know a single person like that, that would say, oh, yeah, I'd vote for Obama but wouldn't only based on their race? Do you know 3% of the population that would do that? I mean, I think if you're only going to -- if you are not going to vote for a guy based solely on his race, you are probably in that 3% that was like, yeah, we've got to kill them all. I mean, I think you're in a totally different category. Am I wrong, Stu? Do you know anybody that would say I'd vote for Barack Obama but then close the curtain and then say, no, I can't do it, he's black?


 


 STU: Not because of race. I mean, you know, obviously -- yeah.


 


 GLENN: Because this is what I said -- I mean, we were just talking to Mary Matalin last hour and that's exactly what I said to her. I believe that you could get in there and say I vote for change, I don't want Hillary Clinton, I want this guy, he's exciting, it's kind of the vote against Hillary Clinton and then when you get in there you're like, no, man, the guy doesn't have any experience whatsoever, I don't know where he really stands on the issues, I've got my doubts on this and that, I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I can see that happening.


 


 STU: That stuff's much more likely but I mean, you know, it's like Mary Matalin said. It's like that stuff, you know, the Bradley effect and all that stuff, you know, you're talking 25 years ago now. I mean, this is not something, I don't think at this point in time, is going on where people are, "I won't put a black man in office. "


 


 GLENN: I don't know those people. You know, I don't know the people who say they won't vote for a woman, either. I'd vote for Condoleezza Rice. She is a woman and black. Do you know many conservatives that wouldn't vote for Condoleezza Rice? I mean, based on what you know about her right now. Do you? I don't.


 


 One of the other excuses being volunteered, USA Today explains how it had Obama up by double digits in its last poll with entire column of guesses, one of which is people just change their mind at the last minute. Well, clearly, you know. How is that possible, though, when you really think about it? I mean, how can the people in New Hampshire who have been bombarded nonstop with commercials and politicians coming to their houses, eating waffles with them, flipping pancakes, how could you possibly make up your mind the day of the vote? I mean, they clearly did but how does that happen? People doing research on the polls have found that 88% of the people have absolutely no semblance of rational set of opinions on where they stood politically. 88% have no idea. As a talk radio listener, somebody who actually cares about what happens in the world, doesn't it kind of make you feel like an elitist? Doesn't it make you feel good? 88% of the people have no idea where they actually stand when push comes to shove. In fact, in the book I tell the story about an experiment of a poll where half of the people registered opinions on whether they approve or disapproved of a law that didn't even exist and it was just based on how that word -- how the wording of the poll was to make it look like the Republicans were for it or against it on how you spoke out about it. Almost everybody spoke out. There was only -- what was the percentage that said no opinion on it, Stu?


 


 STU: Of the fake law thing? I'm sorry. Just, we're having computer problems here. So I just tuned out for a second. I think it's something like 50, 57%, something like that? So it was the majority of the people but still almost half of them were --


 


 GLENN: Would still go on.


 


 STU: Would still go on.


 


 GLENN: And they would strongly, they would dig their heels in.


 


 STU: Oh, yeah.


 


 GLENN: Half of people! If this doesn't make you lose your faith in humanity, try listening to this paragraph from ABC News. This is Professor Jon Krosnick, Stanford University. He has another argument, that the order of names on the New Hampshire ballot, by the way, which was decided by random draw. Clinton was towards the top. Obama was down at the bottom and that netted her about 3 percentage points more than she would have gotten otherwise. Because she was at the top of the list, she got 3 percentage point more.


 


 Now, I can see this if you're -- have you ever been in one of the those polls, and I see this with myself all the time. When somebody is on a random phone call and I haven't taken a poll in I don't know how long but somebody will call me up and say, hey, we want your opinion on something. And then they start listing stuff. Well, then you start hearing how big the list is. You might have judged something harshly up at the top but then you're like, oh, well, it's compared to this. Yeah, I guess this is a priority. But if you are looking at the whole list to vote, do you really just stop at the first one and go, I don't need to read much more than this? Could the order of the names really have moved the polls by 3 full percent? I mean, that's frightening. You know, in the book we talk about the polling experiment, and it is amazing. People were given a list of nine different options including healthcare, the budget deficit, family values, taxes, among other things. Here are the results. When healthcare was the first option, it was chosen as the most important voting issue by 24%. When it was at the bottom of the list, it dropped to 15%. When family values was moved to the top of the list, it increased from 10% to 20%. Only issues listed in the middle stayed about the same. For example, the environment was last both times but that's because it was in the middle. The order moved people by 10 percentage points in polling.


 


 Now, I can see this in polling. I can't see this if you -- I mean, if you're really moved, if you are like, well, her name was first; I can't read the rest of this ballot, I mean, you're just too -- we should take your license away. Worst part about all of this is there are probably 10 other major issues with with polls in the book and almost all of them are being used as excuses on why New Hampshire polls were missed or missed the mark by so much. And the amazing thing is they are all legitimate problems that can happen on any poll you can see on television. The frightening thing is the only thing that stops these people is paying attention, people paying attention. If you want to stop these pollsters, if you want to know what's really going on, you want to make sure that the polls are accurate, then you've got to start paying attention. Unless everybody turns magically from listening to Fergie to news and talk radio, the phenomena of polls being wrong, not going anywhere.

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.