©2023 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THE DOCUMENTS for the 'Arming Ukraine Debate' Glenn TV special
Are you in favor of ongoing aid to Ukraine? Glenn is one of the most outspoken critics of sending aid, arguing that we have become a proxy Ukrainian government and an active participant in the war against Russia. He has also warned we are on a path toward World War III.
However, many conservative leaders believe that supporting Ukraine is in the U.S.'s best national interests. Glenn wanted to give his audience BOTH sides of this important debate. On Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, Glenn hosted two experts, one in favor of ongoing support to Ukraine and one against it.
Glenn wants YOU to be informed about this crucial issue—that's why he is giving his newsletter subscribers EXCLUSIVE access to the documents containing the research and Glenn's pro and con arguments over Ukrainian aid.
Do your own homework
Not already signed up for Glenn's newsletter or missed the one with the documents? No problem. Sign up below we'll email you a PDF of the documents connected to this special, so you can download it directly to your device.
Watch the full special below (or watch on BlazeTV here):
Russia wants to bring about a NEW WORLD ORDER, and WE are antagonizing them to do it
Let me put the language surrounding the war in Ukraine into perspective. I think you will have your eyes opened to what we are REALLY facing.
Dmitry Medvedev. You remember him, right? He's the former Russian President from 2008-2012 who went on to become Prime Minister. He wrote a chilling op-ed piece in the state-run newspaper indicating that there's a REAL nuclear threat if the U.S. continues to supply arms to Ukraine. He, along with Vladimir Putin has invoked the nuclear option in an effort to deter the U.S.-led NATO alliance from arming Ukraine.
RELATED: Tune in TONIGHT on BlazeTV at 9 pm ET for the Glenn TV special exclusively on Russia and the war in Ukraine
Medvedev, who currently serves as a deputy chairman of the powerful security council of Russia, dangled the prospects of peace talks while demanding the immediate halt of all arms shipments to Ukraine. He wrote, "Any existential threat to Russia, would not be decided on the front in Ukraine but would spiral into an existential threat to all of human civilization. We do not need a world without Russia." He was echoing the words that Putin said on Sunday:
The U.S. and its NATO allies want to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The aim is to make our people suffer. How can we ignore their nuclear capabilities in these conditions? They have tried to reshape the world exclusively on their terms. We have no choice, but to react. If Washington gets its way, Russia will be divided into Moscow, the Urals, and other disparate regions. It would be a world without Russia.
Most people, who are not paying attention—and I mean politicians—do not know what that phrase means: "We do not need a world without Russia." It is a very important phrase, the same one that Medvedev used in his op-ed. We must first understand the origin of that phrase to understand its significance, and it harkens back to the deeply dangerous man influencing the Russian government behind the curtain, the modern-day Rasputin, Alexander Dugin.
I have, for a long time, read everything I could on the political philosopher Aleksander Dugin. He's a really bad guy, as I've been telling you for a long time. He explicitly states that he wants to bring about a new world order, ruled by Russia, ushering the world to its end.
There's an award-winning journalist in Moscow named Andrey Loshak, who has been speaking out against Dugin. I want you to read an excerpt of his research about Dugin translated into English. He is warning against dismissing Dugin as a "petty fraudster," interested in nothing but money, or a "windbag," who excites only Western political scientists. But I must warn you: we should NOT underestimate his influence, no matter how crazy we find his ideas, especially because those ideas tend to become reality.
Here is the excerpt
I remember accidentally attending a lecture by Dugin, on angelic entities in the late '90s. It was an unbearable exercise in transcendental sophistry, dealing mainly with the image of Lucifer. The fallen angel. There were about 20 people of indeterminate age and gender in the auditorium, and I thought at the time, that perhaps they too were fallen angelic entities, who have come to listen to a lecture about themselves.
In the mid-naughties, I ran into Dugin at a gig at the Akira Club. He dearly loved English apocalyptic folk music for its commitment to Nazi Satanism. His daughter, Daria, apparently did as well. (I recently saw a post about how she did the Nazi salute at a Death in June gig in Moscow.)
It was also in the noughties [between 2000 and 2010] that I visited the summer camp of Dugin’s Eurasian Youth Union (ESM). A building at a dilapidated holiday resort near Zvenigorod had been rented for this purpose. A building at a dilapidated resort near Zelengrad that had been rented for this purpose.
There were not many young people in attendance, about thirty or forty. Many were wearing Russian peasant shirts, because Dugin had realized that his Nazi-Satanist strategy had no great future in modern Russia, and so he had declared himself an Old Believer. [Glenn: An old believer is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, who thinks that the reforms of 1652 and 1666 were too modern].
Before meals, a round-faced bearded man would proclaim in a bass voice, “Angels at the table!” and those present would cross themselves. At night, the young people lined up with lighted torches on the banks of the Moscow River to take "The Oath of a Eurasian."
Back then, Dugin adored the black magic, ceremonies, and rituals [...]. He and [composer and musician Sergey] Kuryokhin had bonded over this stuff, and Dugin had ignited Kuryokhin with fascist ideas (eventually burning him to a crisp). The wording of the oath was pompous and not bereft of poetry. I recall that the word “will” was intoned more often than curses against “Atlanticist” liberals. [Glenn: That would be us, the people of the sea, as he calls them. Or Atlanticists, people of the North Atlantic Treaty. Will in mind, will in mind, the puny lads and lasses repeated in unison after Dugin].
It would have smacked of Triumph of the Will were it not for the outward appearance of the young Eurasians, which was far from Aryan perfection. At the time, I couldn’t have imagined, of course, that a goofy postmodern cult would someday become the ideological mainstream, and that by 2022 the entire country would be caught up in this sect.
In 2011, the party youth under the leadership of Dugin staged the occult mystery play Finis Mundi (The End of the World) at the ESM’s summer camp. Darya, by the way, played the role of a sacrificial victim who voluntarily self-immolates in order to save Russia. As the girl is burning, a man’s voice proclaims, “Cross yourself with fire, Rus! Burn up in the fire and save your diamond from the black furnace!”
The extravaganza’s director described the concept of the production as follows: "We have to bring the end of the world closer. Antonin Artaud said there is only one means of curing the world’s disease—burning the world, which I illustrated in the play’s final scene, in which the burning of the universe takes place."
In the finale, Dugin came on stage and said, "We have lived three days of our life towards death. I don’t think that the scenes you have staged need to be deciphered. The hermeneutics of the world’s end is the task that faces you in the future."
It is obvious, though, that Dugin is obsessed with the idea of bringing the world to a purgatory apocalypse, after which the Great Eurasian Empire of the End will be born. And he has quite consistently pursued this goal. When the “conservative turn” dawned, Dugin moved away from occult postmodernism, focusing instead on the topic of “tradition,” for which there was a sudden demand. The Kremlin had been frantically searching for new ideologemes with which to oppose the official enemy, liberalism.
Dugin finally turned from a bohemian guru into a sought-after ideologue of the regime. There is one convincing bit of evidence that speaks to this being the case. In 2014, Dugin ends his programmatic article about the ideology of the new Russia as follows: "Russia will either be Russian—that is, Eurasian, that is, the core of the great Russian World—or it will disappear. But then it would be better that everything disappear. There is simply no reason to live in a world without Russia."
Four years later, Putin would repeat this idea almost verbatim in an interview with [TV talk-show host Vladimir] Solovyov on the topic of the nuclear threat: “Why do we need such a world if there is no Russia there?” Dugin had seemingly managed to captivate the dictator with his most terrible idea: hastening the world’s end.
In this context, Darya’s death appears especially ominous. Many people were struck by the young woman’s funeral today. [They were struck] by the behavior of a father who had lost his daughter [but] delivered propaganda tirades in an unnaturally trembling voice and appealed [to Russians] to fight to the bitter end. Moreover, I had the strange feeling that Dugin was directing this spectacle.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but this looks as if it came from the playbook of the stager of occult mystery plays and black masses, and not that of a crook from the state Duma. If we assume for a second that this is true, it really gets creepy. “We will go to heaven, and they will just drop dead,” Putin said when asked to explain what the phrase "we don’t need a world without Russia" had meant.
This is exactly what Dugin calls the "hermeneutics of the world’s end," only couched in the dialect of the backstreets, which the dictator speaks fluently. It sometimes seems to me that they have already made the "final decision." They have not only canceled Ukraine. They have canceled the world.
Let me summarize this for you: the phrase "we don't need a world without Russia" is harkening to Dugin's call for a new world order, which will eventually result in the world's end. In short, this phrase is the language of the world's end. And now Russia's leaders are using it in their speeches.
Dugin does not believe Armageddon brings heaven to earth in the way Christians normally do. He believes Armageddon will renew the earth, and Russia will lead the world. There just has to be some Russian leadership left.
Now, I'm going to give you the rest of Medvedev's opinion piece. It is really important that you read it. I don't believe anyone in this White House or the Pentagon is paying any attention. I don't think our leaders understand who they're dealing with. I hope somebody starts to pay attention to this, because if this is correct, we are in for a completely different ending than what they intend out of this ongoing war in Ukraine.
Medvedev said that any attempt to take Crimea would result in "the flaming of all of Ukraine and with the forces at Russia's disposal, including nuclear weapons. In accordance with our dock to your knowledge documents, including the fundamentals of nuclear deterrence. All of Ukraine, that will remain under the rule of Kyiv. Will burn."
What Medvedev wrote is a chilling warning. He is quoting Clause 19 of the Russian fundamentals, which says that Russia may use nuclear weapons "in the event of aggression against Russia, with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened."
Let me make this clear: the phrase "we don't need a world without Russia," is now being used by Russian leaders to invoke the use of nuclear weapons. The more we antagonize them to believe that "the very existence of the state is threatened," the more fodder we are feeding to their ideological fire calling for a new world order and nuclear warfare. We HAVE got to stop this war path.
Marriage rates PLUMMETED 60 PERCENT since 1970. Why aren't Americans getting married?
Only 30 percent of Americans are married, falling almost 60 percent since 1970. This should concern you.
The National Center for Family Research (NCFMR) published a groundbreaking study showing the plummeting marriage rates over the past 50 years. While marriage rates have slightly fluctuated between 1890-1970, they plunged precipitously starting in 1970 to today. While 76.5 percent of Americans were married in 1970, the rate more than halved down to a mere 31.1 percent in 2023.
During a pro-family legislators' conference in 2022, Glenn described the family as "sacred." This was a widely-accepted notion for most of our history. However, the notion that "marriage is sacred" is now considered an archaic notion and is rather viewed as an option of convenience and mutual benefit. How did our cultural assumptions about marriage change so drastically?
The notion that "marriage is sacred" is now considered an archaic notion.
It comes as no surprise that the precipitous plunge began during the sexual revolution of the 1970s, catalyzing the breakdown of marriage and the family. Johns Hopkins sociologist Andrew Cherlin told Axios that marriage “used to be a basic institution that everyone had to buy into in early adulthood. You got married, then you moved in together, and then you got a job.” However, according to Cherlin, “Marriage is now becoming the last step into adulthood." First, you look for a job, then you move in with your partner before you tie the knot—only if it's convenient. We have flipped the natural progression of adulthood on its head.
The notion that marriage has become an "option" is evidenced in the report, which found that those getting married for the first time between the ages of 40-59 have skyrocketed in recent years and that delayed marriages have increased by 75 percent since 1990.
“Marriage is now becoming the last step into adulthood."
Moreover, rising cohabitation rates indicate that adults are opting for relationships with an "out" option rather than life-long marital commitments and those who are choosing to get married are increasingly integrating the perks of 21st-century singlehood into their relationships. Nearly 4 million married Americans are "living alone together" (LAT), a growing movement of married couples who live separately to retain the independence that they enjoyed while being single.
Minorities are affected disproportionally.
The decline in marriages is especially prevalent in minority communities, particularly minority women. The report found that marriages amongst Hispanic women declined 33 percent, and marriages amongst black women declined as much as 60 percent within the 50-year time period. Only 26 percent of black women are married, accounting for the lowest proportion of married individuals among all demographic groups. Asian women, on the other hand, have the highest marriage rates among all demographics at 56 percent.
We're living with the consequences.
The sexual revolution has transformed marriage into an option of convenience in the "last step" of adulthood rather than the assumed pre-requisite for it. The revolution purported to emancipate, particularly women, from the obligations of traditional marriage, promising more satisfaction and fulfillment. Did it fulfill its promises? The results are in, and the answer is a resounding no. Fifty years after the revolution, married Americans report the highest levels of fulfillment and satisfaction when compared to those who are single or cohabitating. Moreover, mental health is at a breaking point. As Glenn reported, suicide rates skyrocketed 30 percent in 2022, with a 50 percent increase in the black community alone. Are we really more satisfied and fulfilled than our parents and grandparents 50 years ago? The evidence says otherwise.
Perhaps the "archaic" notion that "marriage is sacred," as Glenn defends, actually has some wisdom to it.