World War III is trending on Twitter as Biden tours Ukraine and Poland on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The threat of a third world war is more imminent than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and the American people are feeling it. Glenn has long warned that Biden's foreign policy and the U.S.'s continued aid to Ukraine is "marching towards war." Now, we are at a breaking point.

Here are three reasons why a third world war is a very real possibility unless the Biden administration changes course.

1. We have become a proxy Ukrainian government.

During his speech in Kyiv, Biden announced yet another aid package to Ukraine. What will this money be used for? Biden himself admits that U.S. aid is now being used beyond military initiatives for basic government-funded programs, like pensions and "social support:"

The aid will deliver "much-needed humanitarian assistance, as well as food, water, medicine, and shelter, and other aids to Ukrainians displaced by Russia's war, and provide aid for those seeking refuge in other countries from Ukraine. It's also going to help schools and hospitals open. It's going to allow pensions and social support to be paid to the Ukrainian people, so they have something in their pocket. It also will provide critical resources to address food shortages around the globe."

Pensions? Social Support? Schools? Hospitals? Are we becoming the Ukrainian government? Monetarily speaking: yes. While our government debates our dwindling social security funds, they are sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund Ukrainians' pensions.

We are the proxy Ukrainian government.

Consider this. The U.K. recently released a report estimating that Russia has deployed 97 percent of its military to Ukraine with its resources depleting and its economy tanking. What if China were to not only send billions of dollars in aid packages to Russia along with tanks, missile defense systems, and short-range missiles, but moreover, to fund Kremlin pensions, Russian schools and hospitals, and various social programs? Would we not consider China an active participant in the war? Why would we expect Russia to view us any differently?

They don't.

In December 2022, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the expansion of Western weapon supplies to Ukraine has led to “an aggravation of the conflict.” In October, Russian ambassador in Washington called the United States' plan to send additional aid to Ukraine an "immediate threat" and cemented "Washington's status as a participant in the conflict." Glenn hit the nail on the head: "Not only are we sending over tanks, missiles, bullets, guns, we're now paying for their Social Security. I mean, we are the Ukrainian government."

2. We are sending offensive weapons to Ukraine.

If sending trillions of dollars in aid to Ukraine didn't cement our active role in the war with Russia, our escalation in offensive weapon packages certainly did. The U.S. escalated its weapons packages to Ukraine from defensive weapons to lethal offensive artillery, including Abrams tanks. Germany followed suit with sending a fleet of elite Leopard tanks to Kyiv. These are not defensive weapons—these are offensive weapons intended for use on enemy soil.

And Russia knows this.

Russia says the U.S.'s decision to send tanks to Ukraine is a "direct involvement in the conflict" and called the German government’s decision to send tanks to Ukraine “extremely dangerous” and “takes the conflict to a new level of confrontation.” Moreover, the embassy said it is convinced that Germany and its closest allies were “not interested in a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis” but were “set up for its permanent escalation and unlimited pumping of the Kyiv regime with more and more deadly weapons.”

Where will we draw the line?

Russia says the U.S.'s decision to send tanks is a "direct involvement in the conflict."

The U.K. wants to push the line even further, opening up the possibility of sending fighter jets to Ukraine as Kyiv pleads with the U.S. for F-35 stealth fighter jets. Russia warned that supplying cutting-edge fighter jets would be "on London's conscience" because of the "bloodshed, next round of escalation, and subsequent military and political ramifications for the European continent and the entire globe."

Are we willing to continue to poke the bear?

3. Russia is forging new military alliances with Western enemies.

Now that we have poked the bear, Russia is seeking new military alliances of its own, strengthening a new anti-Western alliance. Iran is building military drones for Russia's front in Ukraine. Belarus is welcoming Russian troops along its northern border with Ukraine. According to U.S. intelligence, Russia is importing illegal weapons from North Korea. Most recently, China's top diplomat Wang Yi solidified ties with Russia and is contemplating sending military aid during his recent visit to Moscow.

We have poked the bear.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken warned against China "providing lethal support to Russia in the war against Ukraine." If we expect to continue to supply Ukraine with "lethal support" without any consequences from Russia, why would we expect China to do anything differently? As Glenn said, "after we're sending all this [aid], we actually think we have the right to tell China, 'Don't send any military aid to Russia.' Who the hell do we think we are?"

The escalation in weapons supplies on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is pulling the world in one of two alliances, the pro-Western NATO alliance and the anti-West Russian coalition. Does this ring any bells?

Will we ever learn from history?

As Glenn recently said, "We are repeating, to the letter, World War I." What the Allied and Central powers were during the early 1900s is what NATO and Russia's anti-western coalition is becoming today. World War I was the final result of the cascade of conflicts and alliance obligations that stemmed from one single event—the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. What will be the first domino to start the cascade that pulls NATO into a war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? A stray missile that hits Poland? American tanks treading into Russian territory? Is this fragile house of cards really in the best interest of the American people?

As Glenn said, we're "not saying China and Russia are the on right side." We can condemn their actions without fueling the fire that could bring the whole world into a new world war. We have to learn from our history, hold our leaders accountable, and demand that our government prioritize the interests and safety of the American people.

Glenn has long warned of the threat ESG poses to the free market and our individual liberty. However, many conservatives still defend ESG as a way of setting socially positive parameters around the free market, distracting from the real threat ESG poses. ESG not only threatens the free market, it moreover transfers the power of the market out of the hands of the consumer into the pockets of the elites.

What is ESG?

As Glenn's audience is well aware, ESG stands for "environmental, social, and governance." It is a scoring system for businesses based on their compliance with environmental and social standards. Certain factors are considered in an ESG score, including "climate change adaptation, energy efficiency, employee health & wellbeing, diversity, equity, & inclusion (DE&I), and human rights." This scoring system is mostly self-reported by businesses to entice asset managers who are looking to invest in "environmentally friendly" or "socially-conscious" businesses, however, some governments, such as the EU, are increasingly requiring ESG reporting as a pre-requisite to operate within its jurisdiction.

What's the big deal? Doesn't the free market protect ESG?

ESG defenders say the self-reporting nature of ESG is a free-market incentive rather than an arbitrary standard imposed on businesses. However, the reality is much closer to extortion for leftist purposes.

Large asset management firms, who have a monopolistic market share over the asset management industry have chosen to prioritize ESG investments. That means if you don't want to comply with ESG's leftist standards in YOUR business, you can kiss investment goodbye.

ESG is already affecting YOUR money.

Take Blackrock as an example. The asset management behemoth manages over $10 trillion which is equivalent to HALF of the U.S. GDP. Blackrock alone has invested a total of $110 billion in ESG funds. What does that entail? The main criterium for investment isn't the likelihood of turning a profit—these firms are now incentivized to invest in ESG-ranking funds over others that may yield a higher profit. In short, they are using YOUR money to invest in companies based on ESG scores rather than their likelihood of returning on investment.

With ESG, the main criterium for investment isn't the likelihood of turning a profit.

Blackrock isn't alone. Second only to Blackrock, the DWS Group invested $36 billion in ESG, comprising 11 funds. Parnassus Investments poured $33 billion into ESG. Bank of America calculated over $200 billion was invested in ESG bond funds between 2019 and 2022. These investments skewed towards left-leaning organizations, putting conservative organizations at an inherent disadvantage. It is nothing less than extortion—"you won't get any investments unless you comply with my political beliefs."

As Vivek Ramaswamy said on Glenn's show, "They're using the money of everyday American citizens, most of the listeners of this program, yours and mine, to foist values onto corporate America, to advocate for values, in corporate America." Instead of putting your money towards companies that will GROW your personal wealth, these monopolistic asset management firms are using YOUR money to financially promote its leftist-based values, turning asset management into political advocacy.

"They're using the money of everyday American citizens [...] to foist values onto corporate America."

This isn't only happening on the business level—it's affecting numerous consumers. ESGagainstus.com has been collecting stories of individuals and businesses having their bank accounts frozen due to their personal beliefs that don't comply with the ESG agenda. How many more people will it affect until we stop it?

Conservatives need to stand up to ESG.

There is already some positive legislation coming from conservative states combatting ESG. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has gone so far as to ban ESG practices statewide:

By applying arbitrary ESG financial metrics that serve no one except the companies that created them, elites are circumventing the ballot box to implement a radical ideological agenda. Through this legislation, we will protect the investments of Floridians and the ability of Floridians to participate in the economy.

Will other conservatives do the same?

ESG turns asset management into political advocacy.

The issue of ESG is nothing short of putting freedom of conscience and the power of consumer choice back in the hands of the PEOPLE, rather than elite corporations. As Glenn said, "We must return the power to the hands of the people." The issue of ESG will force our leaders to show their true colors: those who are willing to stand up for the people against elitist corporations and those who will do the elitists' bidding.

Glenn has long warned his listeners about the World Economic Forum's threat to individual liberty and freedom. Now, many of these goals are materializing into actual policies. This should deeply concern you.

In particular, Glenn has been focused on exposing the global threat of the World Economic Forum's Great Reset, the agenda proposed by the World Economic Forum in 2020, urging leaders to take advantage of the COVID-19 crisis to restructure the "world order" to bring about a leftist Utopia.

Below are four goals that emerged from the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset and are now being implemented, posing severe threats to YOUR freedom and privacy.

Digital currency

VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

Digital Currency took center stage during the 2023 Davos Summit with many proponents arguing for the adoption of "Central Bank Digital Currencies" or CBDCs. One article titled "Key Takeaways from The Davos Agenda" from this year's summit cited a BIS study that found:

86% of central banks are now exploring the benefits and drawbacks of a CBDC. And about 60% of central banks (up from 42% in 2019) are conducting experiments or proofs-of-concept, while 14% are moving forward to development and pilot arrangements.

This should concern you greatly.

China is one of the leading nations in implementing CBDC, already launching pilot programs in 15 of its provinces. The government has complete control, not only through determining the artificial value of the digital currency, but moreover, through being able to track every transaction. Personal finances, under this system, are laid bare before the government.

If the U.S. adopts a CBDC, which would be comparable to a "digital dollar," the government would be able to determine the value of goods through determining the value of its currency. The government could deflate the value of its currency in "government-approved" sectors while inflating the value in others to limit purchasing power—take guns as an example.

This type of monetary control is something the Soviet Union could have only dreamed of. If our personal financial freedom comes under digital control of the government, it is only a short amount of time before the rest of our freedoms go with it.

Carbon pricing

The World Economic Forum has long promoted "carbon pricing" as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. Carbon pricing usually takes one of two forms. Many European countries have adopted the first form called "emissions trading systems" or ETS. Companies that produce low carbon emissions are given carbon "allowances" that they can then trade or sell to higher-emission-producing companies. The second way is through a carbon tax, which taxes companies based on the number of emissions they produce.

Why should this concern you?

Carbon taxes give the government the ability to stifle industries that they deem "dangerous" to climate change. In one fell swoop, the government could place an undue burden on coal and gas industries while financially benefiting the "government-approved" electricity industry. This is a direct attack on the free market, giving the government the power, rather than the consumer, to financially determine which industries flourish.

Brain transparency

VW Pics / Contributor | Getty Images

During last week's Glenn TV episode on AI, Glenn shared a disturbing video from the 2023 Davos summit introducing "brain transparency" technology. This technology is able to track your feelings and face shapes of who you are thinking about. It can even detect your pin number from your thoughts!

The video introduced a possible way of implementing this technology in the workplace. Your employer could send a negative signal to your brain when you are unfocused or daydreaming about a fellow employee, or your employer could send a reward signal to your brain when you are being productive. However, this technology could be used for even more nefarious purposes, such as propaganda and mind control.

China is already using this technology with factory employees, mandating employees wear hats with this technology to track their productivity. Given the World Economic Forum's goal of cracking down on "disinformation" using "hate speech laws," it is deeply concerning to consider how governments could use this technology to further this goal.

Bugs as the gateway to government-controlled farming

The World Economic Forum highlights countries, like those within the EU, that promote insects as an alternative, "green" source of protein. In its 2023 Global Risks Report, the World Economic Forum calls for the "transition to net-zero, nature-positive food" to fight "food insecurity." Of course, this entails the crackdown on emissions-producing food like beef, chicken, milk, and eggs, and the introduction of "sustainable" protein sources, like bugs.

The issue with this goal isn't the unappetizing nature of insects—it's the control given to the government to implement this "food transition." Alarm bells should always ring when you hear of government control over food industries—just ask the Ukrainian farmers during the Soviet Union. The more food systems are nationalized, the greater the likelihood of poverty, food scarcity, and socialist policies.

We are already seeing the government in the Netherlands buy out Dutch farms to transition into "sustainable farming." Will the U.S. be next?