Glenn explores the remarkable life of “Madam” C.J. Walker. The child of former slaves who grew up in the violently racist Deep South, Walker rose from poverty and abuse to blaze an inspiring trail of entrepreneurship and philanthropy that could only happen in America.
Either far-left elites are just absolutely STUPID or they’re actually TRYING to completely destroy our economy. In this clip, Glenn runs through 5 different stories that exemplify either the left’s sheer idiocy OR calculated, planned moves to end the Western way of life. So, which do YOU think it is…?
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Okay. So I want to -- I want to go through a few stories, and ask you if this is a coincidence, if this is just global stupidity unlike we've ever seen. Or as I believe, it is intentional.
And it is an intentional thing to bring down our economy. And when I say our economy, I mean the entire western economy.
To bring down our economy, to reset it, to something new. The Great Reset.
Also, to take down our electrical systems. Our power generation. And to be able to put us on the ropes, with energy. Then to dismantle our food system. And as crazy this is, I'll explain in a minute.
That is part of the great reset. Plus, at the same time, turn our children into people that don't want to procreate. Take our young girls and stop them from being able to reproduce.
Confuse children. So they can't think logically. And then destroy all truth. Are those things happening as a coincidence? Is it really all of those things? Let me give you a couple of stories. Switzerland is looking at banning electric vehicle use during an energy crisis.
Now, how is that possible? How can the all-blessed battery and electric car be considered as something we could ban during an energy crisis.
It's supposed to save us energy. No. That's a lie by the left.
It takes more energy to produce one of those cars, than it does to produce a regular gasoline engine car or diesel engine car. So you'll start at an energy deficit. And then the thing that they never talk about, is where does that magic electricity come from, inside of your wall?
It comes usually from a coal-fired plant, a hydroelectric plant, or a nuclear plant.
It could also come as it is in Texas, in a natural gas plant. All of those things are being dismantled. So where are we going to get our electricity, when we have an energy crisis? Which they have now, but they'll blame it on the war. They have now in Europe.
But we're getting rid of dams here. We're shutting nuclear power plants down here. We're banning coal here. We're banning oil production here.
Where is that magic energy coming from?
Next story. Soros has a -- another little -- spooky dude. Problem-solving counsel. It's called the government impact. Funded by me. Spooky dude. George Soros. We just put out a memo, now. Advising the Biden administration that the Clean Air Act grants the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority to control or prohibit the manufacturing and sale of gasoline. Hmm.
Wow. So in this republic of ours, the president through an edict. Through one of his departments. The Department of Ed.
Or, sorry, the Department of Environmental Protection. They can just ban gasoline. There's your republic for you.
By the way, LA has voted the ban of any new oil wells. So what does that mean? If they're not pumping oil, they're going to have to buy it from someplace else. And you ain't buying it from America. Because America isn't allowed to drill either.
The city is going to get rid of operations, that are already running, after a 20-year period to phase them out. This is the most important step toward environmental justice. Is it environmental justice?
Because I don't even know what environmental justice is. I know what they say it means. But here's what I think it means: The intentional destruction of our way of life.
All right? Let me give you this one. Is this a coincidence, or is this very well-planned?
A joint resolution has just gone to the House in Michigan. Michigan is -- let me see if I can find the stupid PDF here.
Because I have to read it to you. Michigan is now looking and putting a joint resolution in. Joint resolution Y.
They are looking now to control all gasoline production. Oil. Gas production, as a natural gas.
And distribution. And creation of electricity in Michigan. The state is now discussing a takeover of the entire energy sector, in Michigan.
And they want to do it through eminent domain.
So Michigan is now talking about a state takeover of all electricity. All gasoline. All natural gas.
I couldn't see what -- what could possibly go wrong there? I think Whitmer is probably the most important person in the electric production and distribution family. Do you know anybody who is more qualified than the governor of Michigan?
Is this an intentional enslaving of people? Or are they just this stupid?
You'll have to decide. Let me give you this story. Yesterday, I told you about the Netherlands. And how farmers are being bought out by the state, if they won't stop using nitrogen fertilizer. The farmers have been protesting, saying, we will not be able to grow enough food. We will not be able to have enough cattle, to be able to feed Europe.
Now, remember, you might blow off the Netherlands as, who cares about the Dutch farmers? The Netherlands are the second largest food exporter in the world. The second.
So all of Europe will starve if you destroy the farmland in the Netherlands. That's exactly what they're doing. They've said, because of global warming, the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset says, we can't use any kind of modern fertilizer.
So because we can't use modern fertilizer, we're not only going to be cold in the winter because we can't use fossil fuels, but we also are going to be starving. Now, I told you that story yesterday. And warned you, that it is coming here.
Let me give you today's story: German farmers are ordered to slash their nitrogen fertilizer usage to -- to comply to the EU and World Economic Forum green laws.
So Germany is banning farmers from using nitrogen fertilizer. Which, by the way, because of nitrogen fertilizer, we probably have 50 percent more yield to our crops. That means, 50 percent less food, if you don't use it. It's not like we have a better solution. We're just saying, stop using this! Exactly what we're doing with energy. We don't have the magic green energy yet. But we're just stopping producing. Hydroelectric. We're taking down dams. We're shutting down nuclear power plants. We're shouting down coal plants. We're shutting down oil. And replacing it with? Nothing! Just a different lifestyle. You won't own anything, and you'll like it. I'm sorry. But all of this -- all of this is the intentional destruction of your way of life.
And I'm not saying that our way of life is the most thrifty. Is the best.
I'm saying, the western world saved millions. Hundreds of millions of lives, just from starvation. In the last 50 years.
Our progress actually helped people become more educated. To become better people. Stronger people.
More inventive people. All of that is being destroyed.
And it's being done intentionally. I mean -- I just found a -- a report from the APA. The American -- I think it's Psychiatrist Association. And in this, they talk about the social benefits, and the social drawbacks for identity conflict.
So identity conflict is, I don't know if I'm a man or a woman. I don't know who I am.
I -- I -- I don't know if I'm part of society. I'm an outcast of society.
I'm a male. I'm a female. I'm a bambi.
Okay? Social conflicts. The current increasingly complex environment, people often hold multiple social identities.
For example, an Asian-American may identify both as an American and an Asian. A mixed race person may simultaneously identify with both races. Whenever the different identities are simultaneously activated and give conflicting behavioral direction, people experience social identity conflict. Seven studies, both measured and manipulated social identity conflict in surveys, secondary data, controlled experiments, show that social identity conflict shortens one's planning horizon in future-oriented choices. Now, what does that mean?
It means that our children cannot plan for their future. They don't know how to plan for their future. They can't look to the future.
So not only have we confused them, we're also not teaching them critical thinking. We're teaching them, never to question. And because we've confused them, they can't think critically and make any long-term decisions.
Now, is all of this being done, because somehow or another, the whole elite world has just forgotten science? Or is this being done intentionally, by a group of elites who, quite honestly, are anti human? You'll have to ask yourself that question. And your friends that question. But I urge you, America, to ask your friends to hurry. And answer that question.
Right before Thanksgiving, when Americans were distracted with travel plans and family feasts, the Federal Reserve announced it is testing its own CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency). Carol Roth, former investment banker and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ joins Glenn to detail how this CBDC is the OPPOSITE of decentralized cryptocurrencies that interest millions of Americans. Yet, the Fed is trying to confuse Americans into believing the two kinds of digital currencies are just alike: ‘It’s a new scheme to maintain power and control.’ Plus, Roth explains how this CBDC — if it becomes the norm — WILL END our economic freedom...
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Carol Roth, how are you?
CAROL: Glenn, you're sounding very feisty for a Monday morning. I'm not sure I can handle this. But coming up the weekend here.
GLENN: I have to tell you, I can't take the mainstream media, and half of the country, that is like, that's a conspiracy theory. What? That you're stupid?
That you don't pay attention.
That you can't read?
What is the conspiracy theory at this point? Because all of the things that people like you, people like me, we have been talking about now for years, are just being verified, one right after the other.
CAROL: Yeah. I think the definition of a conspiracy theory at this point is something that the media will report on three years later after we all knew that it happened.
GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. There's a difference between conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts. So let's -- let's talk about the -- the facts -- let's start with the CBDC. The central bank digital currency.
CAROL: Yes. First of all, CBDC is not a bar at New York City. So this is actually something different.
CAROL: But it is tied into the monetary system. And basically, this is something that more than 100 countries around the world, who are losing control of their Fiat currencies, because of their government overspending. And because of their central bank printing. They're trying to come up with a new scheme to be able to maintain that power and control. So the idea of the central bank digital currency is to confuse you. People are interested in cryptocurrencies because they're deindustrialized and because they don't have that centralized power. And so they're trying to glom on to that interest and say, oh, yeah. We're just like that. Except for, they're exactly the opposite. They are completely centralized. And they give entire control to the central banks. So imagine today, you know the Treasury prints up a Federal Reserve note. We call it a dollar, route?
And imagine that dollar had a chip in it. And so when you went to go pay with your dollar, the fed was trapping you. The government was tracking you and saying, nah, you know, Glenn, you've had too many burgers this month.
We really don't want people eating meat because it's bad for the environment. So this dollar is no good anymore.
This is what a central bank digital currency, assuming that it's a retail facing one, one that the consumers will use, is going to do. And, oh, guess what, the New York fed is doing a 12-week digital dollar pilot. That is including Wells Fargo, the very Group, MasterCard. And about six others.
GLENN: So, Carol, they are saying that because they're not sure. If they can convert our system of transferring money, which doesn't involve any trucks.
But the digitizing of actual physical dollars. And sending them overseas in bulk. They're not sure they can work out the math, on how to do that, without the US dollar.
That sounds like the biggest bunch of bullcrap, I've ever heard.
They're wondering if it's going to work for the data transfer?
You're doing it every day now.
CAROL: Yeah. So the US is the leader in payments. And if you go and look at all the different -- the Bank Policy Institute. All the different folks who are kind of looking at policy around this, everybody is going, you know, America doesn't need this.
It's one thing for a small country that doesn't have the infrastructure. But we have laser fast settlements of payments. We have laser fast transactions through private entities. There is no need for this.
The need is a wanton and a desire for control and power by the people who are in charge and by the people who have not been taking care of those dollars. And so they need a new scheme. And this is the scheme. And, oh, by the way, this is how they're going to do this, Glenn. And my best guess right now. All this stuff we're seeing with the crypto woes. The FTX collapse. The -- you know the hacking, the fraud. They're going to tell you, oh, we need regulation. We need regulation around crypto. Because crypto is bad.
And they are going to regulate it, and they're going to sneak in congressional approval. Because that's the one thing. That a central bank. Digital currency. The fed does not have authorization from it. It must come from Congress. Not that that stops anyone anyway.
Just theoretically speaking. So keep an eye out. Whatever bills are coming down the pike. They are going to try to stuff this in here. And I'm not joking at all. I'm not -- this is not hyperbole. This will be the end of economic freedom. If a retail CBDC comes to fruition.
GLENN: I -- you know I'll go a step further. I'm not saying this is the mark of the beast. But it has all the earmarks of just not being able to live in society without it.
You won't be able to do anything, without it. Correct?
CAROL: Yeah. I mean, listen, it impacts your livelihood. You know how you get paid. How you transact.
I mean, it is the foundation.
Stable money is the foundation of a stable society.
GLENN: Now, people will say, though, Carol. That I already -- I already interact with my money this way.
I don't get an actual paycheck and bring it to the bank. It's digitally transferred into my bank. And then I spend, either a credit card or a debit card, everywhere I go. I go to a gas station. Put a card in. What's the difference?
CAROL: If I really, you're doing by choice. And you have a choice of providers. And the providers aren't the government. And it doesn't have the authority to come in and say, I'm sorry.
We're just going to cut off your ability to take in money. Or to put out money. We're going to freeze it.
Think about the trucker convoy up in Canada. They just froze their assets. They can do this, you know with just a flick of a switch.
Just one off, and say, I'm sorry. But that's it. You can't -- we've abandoned -- we've gotten rid of cars. We're not going to let you hail an Uber. Let you do this.
You said something bad on social media. We didn't like it. So we'll let you come down. This is a tool to let people submit to what the government wants. And it's the ultimate bullying tactic. The ultimate control tactic, to be able to control every facet of how you transact.
GLENN: I will tell you, that it is -- it is -- what people will say, well, I'm not doing anything wrong. You don't have to do anything wrong.
You just have to want to spend your money on hamburger. As opposed to fish or bugs or whatever it is.
You just want -- you want gasoline, and there's a shortage, and you're not part of the crew, that is deemed essential.
So you get no gasoline. This -- this is -- you know everybody complains about socialized. -- or, you know about free market health care.
First of all, we don't have free market health care. We haven't had free market health care, in a very long time. Government is all over it. Now with Obamacare, it's worse.
However, this is the point. Look at what's happening now, with Canada.
Canada actually said to a Canadian veteran, who just needed -- she's like probably 40, she couldn't walk up her stairs anymore.
Because of the pain. So she calls Veterans Affairs, and they say -- she says, I just wanted one of those chair things that go up the stairs.
She said, that they told her. And she's not the only one. We can assist you in suicide, if it's just so bad. She's like, what!
This is what's happening.
GLENN: You'll have no options. No options.
CAROL: You will own nothing. They'll put it out there. And like you said, the word I wanted to key in from what you were talking about earlier. Was essential.
Because this is what they did to us in 2020. They said, some of us were essential. Some of us were not essential. So it's not like we don't have a case study, that's less than a couple of years old, to say that they will pick winners and losers. They will do that based on political clout and connections.
And guess who will not be in that inner circle? Probably everybody listening to the program. Including you and me. So this is an epic, epic disaster. And this is something everybody should be writing their representatives and senators. Saying, absolutely not. This is a complete affront to our freedoms.
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a new First Amendment case involving a Christian graphic artist who does not want to be forced to design wedding websites for same-sex couples. This case — coming from Colorado — marks the second time in five years that SCOTUS will grapple with religious business owners vs. gay weddings. But the far-left’s goal in this case seems to be much more sinister than hoping the two sides can conduct business peacefully. Rather, Glenn predicts, this case is about forced compliance: ‘It’s about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it, and [to] have you profess a belief that you don’t have.’
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So does the First Amendment even exist anymore? We have a White House telling us, no. Will we have the Supreme Court telling us no, as well?
I want to play a couple of things that happened in the Supreme Court, and outside, concerning the court case now, that is involving this web designer, who says she cannot make a website, you know, with gay marriage announcements and everything else, because she's a Christian.
Well, let's start here. This is the Colorado attorney general that is insisting on television here, that even if you have moral objections, you have to do the work.
Listen to this, cut three.
VOICE: You talk about -- it's the slippery slope argument. If this happens, what is the next argument to fall. There are 29 states, including Colorado, that have nondiscrimination laws. What is the impact? If the court sides with Smith, what is the impact for, you know, makeup artists, hair stylists?
You know, people in this sort of -- considering themselves having expressive professions?
What is the actual big implication here, if this case doesn't go your way as you see it?
VOICE: Well, first off, we're going to have to figure out where to draw that line.
If someone makes specialized lattes, do they have an expressive interest in saying, I'm sorry. I don't want to serve Mormons, because I don't believe in the Mormon religion?
That set of hypotheticals could become reality if we lose this case.
Now, hang on just a second. Isn't this what cancel culture is doing?
Aren't these businesses that disagree with your political view, not a status as a human being. But your political view, aren't they canceling you?
So aren't they already having the right to do it, you are just trying to take away the religious right?
Because I don't want to cancel anyone. But I'm not going to work for MSNBC.
You know they're never going to hire me. But I'm not going to go work for them. I don't do that. I don't want to do that.
I don't want to say those things. If I worked at MSNBC, well, then I had made a choice to take that job.
Because that's what they do. Do I have a right to get on MSNBC and do the exact opposite? Don't I have a -- a right to my own conscience, and what I deeply believe. Especially when it comes to faith.
Now, listen to Ketanji Brown.
She got a lot of heat on this. She was talking about It's a Wonderful Life from the stand yesterday.
VOICE: Public business. I'm a photographer, my belief is that I'm doing it's a wonderful life scenes. That's what I'm offering. I want to do video depictions of It's a Wonderful Life. And knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can -- I'll give to everybody else, I'll sell them anything they want, just not the It's a Wonderful Life depictions. I'm expressing something, right? For your purposes, that's speech.
GLENN: Okay. Ketanji Brown Jackson, sit down. You're a moron. You're a moron. First of all, yes. I am making It's a Wonderful Life scenes. That is clearly a vision that we've seen. We can put the standard side by side.
So if I'm creating that scene, yeah. I can discriminate and say, no. I need white people in this. Because I'm re-creating that scene.
Now, if I'm updating that scene, if I'm showing It's a Wonderful Life in today's America, well, then, I could include and should include everyone. I don't even know what she's talking about here. First of all, It's a Wonderful Life is not a religious objection. If I have a religious objection, I can't change what I believe, just like you can't change your skin color. I cannot change a deeply held religious belief.
STU: But in -- it's true, first of all. But it's also, an additional thing. Right?
Like, the religious part of this gives you additional protection, beyond what is already there. You can't compel someone to say something.
That is like really a bright line in our country. You can't -- take it to this example.
If -- if -- if Kanye West opened up -- decided to open up a website that said, hey, I will customize birthday songs for you.
Which, by the way, given his career arc, may be a real possibility very, very soon.
GLENN: He's working on the pancake recipe now.
STU: Right. And let's just say, hey, I will customize your Happy Birthday rap, just give me your name. And then someone decides, hey, in fact, how about do my bar mitzvah instead? Does he have to do that?
The answer to that is no. You can't ask -- despite his anti-Semitic views being abhorrent to most, you cannot force him to sing a positive song about a bar mitzvah because that would be compelling his artistic expression. You cannot do that.
That's already there. Whether it's a religious belief or not. Just because he does --
GLENN: And in his case, it is both. In his case, it is both.
STU: You can argue, I guess the black Israelite -- maybe that's where it is. Even if it's just not about religion at all, you still can't make somebody do that. Add on to that, the religious protection. It's a whole 'nother layer. I mean, really a lot of this case has been less about religion and more about the idea whether you can compel speech.
There was a famous case that happened recently, where it was a religious institution. I can't remember which one it was.
But was saying, hey, there's a new state law that says, if you're going to counsel people on pregnancy, you have to post a poster that says, abortion is an option and here's how you can get one if you want to. And the Supreme Court said, no. You can't a religious organization, who doesn't believe in abortion, to post that. You can't compel them to speech. And that speech was defined as posting a poster.
This has been a bright line forever!
And hopefully, this Supreme Court will actually have the balls to cast a very broad net here, to make sure this is protected for everyone.
You should never be forced to say or express something you don't believe.
GLENN: So here's what Barrett said, yesterday. She said, Canada's designer declined to serve a Catholic club because they disagreed with their views on marriage.
The -- the -- the Colorado attorney respond, yes.
Because that's not status-based discrimination.
Wait. Hang on just a second. She went in and said, wait. But the designer can't decline to do a same-sex marriage design.
Yes! Because same-sex marriage is inextricably intertwined with status. And religion isn't.
Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second.
There is a -- a whole right that was defined as a very bright line, as Stu just said. So it's not like we're looking and trying to read in, well, we've got to have freedom of speech. And does freedom of religion fall into that?
No. Freedom of religion is entirely separate. Entirely separate. And so it is protected, clearly. There is no trouble so my comma in this one. It is clearly protected.
But if you want to argue that you have the right for a designer, a web designer to discriminate against a Catholic church. Which they do have that right. I don't want to do your design. Great. I'm glad you told me, that you hate us, because I don't want you designing our website. I don't think you'll do a good job. If I can decline the church, why is it the church, that has a deeply held religious belief. I mean, my church was founded on the family. And the sacredness of men and women and gender. Gender is ordained by God, before birth. There is no confusion. That's like 40 years old in my church.
Wait. I have to change now? No. Because I can't change because the government tells me I have to change. This is something I believe to the core. And I either believe it, or I don't. Now, you think that I can just change my belief, because you're right. No. No.
I believe God has set these standards. Not man. Not you. Not me.
I can't change the standards. Neither can you. And as long as I'm consistent in that, I have a right to assert my religious exemption, from your little rule.
I'm sorry. I -- my faith tells me, I cannot go there.
If you have a religious object injection to war, and you are a pacifist, and it's a religious exemption, you don't have to go fight in war.
Because you're a Quaker. And it is a deeply held religious exemption.
And it's a deeply held relief. Or belief.
STU: That's a great example too. Like, we have come. Think of what that particular exemption is. We are saying, our country is under attack. Our nation may fall. It's the literal most important thing, that a government can do, right?
GLENN: Without your nation. Without people fighting this war, we could fall to the Nazis, and you won't have your right to your religion. That's the argument against.
STU: Right. And even with that scenario, we say to the Quakers, you know what, you don't have to do it. Your religion is more important than the war. Your religion is more important than the entire country falling or not.
GLENN: Because we don't have the right.
STU: Because we don't have the right.
GLENN: To get between you and God.
STU: And here we have an argument about lattes?
STU: We're acting as if wedding sites. Are they even a thing? I guess I got married too early. Wedding websites, we're acting as if that's as important?
We've said the actual defense of our to Nazis is not important enough to overwhelm this right. And we're talking about lattes and photographers and cupcakes. This is completely ridiculous. And then you add on the free speech element of this. Which is what this case seems to be surrounding more than anything else.
Whether the government can say you must say two plus two equals five.
With this -- with the way they're describing this right, the government could tell anyone to say anything.
STU: And either one of these rights, is clearly defined. Either one of them overwhelms the left's case on this, and they have both of them working in conjunction here. This is not a close call.
GLENN: This is a freedom-breaking decision.
If they decide in favor of Colorado, this is a freedom-breaking -- you have no right anymore. You'll have no right.
And this done in conjunction with what they just passed, the Defense of Marriage Act, or interracial act. This is what they're hoping for.
This is what they're shooting for. To be able to shut down anyone that objects. It's not about living together and tolerating one another.
It is about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it. And have you accept and profess a belief you don't have.
That's a dictatorship. That is Naziism. Communism.
It -- it is a religion. We are headed towards a -- a theocratic autocracy.
Their religion is just a Gaia. And Baal. And whatever it is that worships the earth in slaughter and perversion of children.
The information Elon Musk handed over to journalist Matt Taibbi concerning Twitter corruption during the 2020 election season — which has now become known as the ‘Twitter Files’ — probably isn’t shocking to conservatives. After all, we already knew most of the information a LONG time ago, even if the mainstream media refused to accept the facts. But there is one, big takeaway from the Twitter Files that you should recognize. In this clip, Glenn reveals what he believes is the 1 reason this information drop is truly ‘disturbing.’
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Let's talk a little bit about Twitter. Did you go over the exposé, that was done this weekend on Twitter?
STU: From Matt Taibbi?
STU: Elon Musk, basically seemed to give him a cache, of some sort of a bunch of emails about whatever the Democrats were doing, around the Hunter Biden laptop era. Right before the 2020 election. And he was going to go through it, and kind of see what was there. It was interesting, Musk wasn't trying to do it himself. He was doing it to, he was a responsible journalist to go through it.
GLENN: Oh, boy. Oh, boy. Okay. That's the second time you've said that word. And I just can't -- you said a journalist. And then respected journalist. The guy is a blogger. I know because I've read it in the New York Times. I've read it in politico. I've read it and heard it from NBC. MSNBC. CNN. ABC News. He's a blogger. I heard it from the rolling stone.
GLENN: And they should know.
STU: Because he worked for them, didn't he?
GLENN: Well, he was a contributing editor to the rolling stone. And took down some major things. But, I mean, does that make you a journalist?
STU: And now he's -- so even rolling stone is saying, now he's a blogger.
GLENN: He's a blogger. He's a blogger.
STU: Okay. And I assume they would say the same about Bari Weiss, who is one of the bigwigs over at the New York Times.
GLENN: Of course. She's a Substack blogger.
STU: Right. That is what they're trying to do here, to push this off.
GLENN: Which to me, don't you think that's changed?
I think journalist is actually less credible, than blogger. I mean, especially a Substack blogger.
I mean, oh, that -- you mean like Glenn Greenwald, and Bari Weiss.
And Taibbi. Yeah. I think I'm -- I think I'm going to run in that PAC and not the others. You listen to Bari Weiss, talk about her departure from the New York Times. And she talks about how there were all sorts of pressures within the organization, to not say what people believed.
STU: And they went after people who questioned the narrative the wrong way, over and over again. So you would think, when you're free to do whatever you want to do you at least will be honest about it. You will come out and say what you believe. And I think you got that from the initial Twitter files release. Which kind of deal with both sizes.
Saying, well, there were some stuff on both sides. And there were good Democrats in all this. But generally speaking, what it pointed to, was a real effort by the Biden campaign, as we suspected, to go after narratives, they thought, didn't serve them. But part of that was the Hunter laptop. Part of the reason why I wasn't all over this so far, is because I don't think we have the real picture yet. We have only a small slice.
STU: These documents were turned over to a couple of journalists, who have not had -- or, bloggers, who have not had the time to fully go through them and give us, you know, a moment by moment look as to who did what and how they did it, and I think it will take time for that to sort of marinate and go through the system.
GLENN: So here -- from 40,000 feet, here's what we discovered. Elon Musk released some of this inside information, and some of the documents that showed, a couple of things. One, the FBI was meeting with them monthly. And that is, as it got close to the election, they were meeting with them weekly. That is troublesome. Again, not something that we didn't know. But it is something that was called a conspiracy theory for a long time.
That's they were taking the Hunter Biden story. And they were getting advice from the FBI.
And the people inside of Twitter, were the ones that were torpedoing it, with the advice from the Biden campaign.
Well, that's what we found. So it's not new to any conservative. However, it is new to the press.
And it is new to the press. This is why this is a big deal.
You're not going to -- in my opinion. You're not going to feel like, whoa. Wow.
Look at that smoking gun. Because we've been talking about it.
We've known this was going on. The whole world has known, this was going on. And what they found was, the -- the right will get some things, you know on their side. As well.
But the disturbing part to me was, it comes through personal contacts. So it is truly -- would you call it nepotism. You know you have to know somebody. And if you knew somebody in Twitter, you could get the world changed.
And so you had people reaching out to their friends in Twitter. Reaching out to their former coworkers. Maybe at the White House. Saying, hey, look. This is a problem. Can you take care of it?
Yep. I got it. I'll take care of it for you.
STU: Of course, implicit in that, 90 percent of the people who worked in that, were liberal.
All their friends were liberal. So most of the stuff that got edited, were stuff that people wanted edited.
So it was not fair, as they pointed out. It's not balanced. It's not like both sides did the same thing by any means. The only thing --
GLENN: Well, both sides did the same things. But not anywhere -- you know when it's -- you know when it's one time for every nine times.
GLENN: That's not doing the same thing.
STU: Right. And I think the only thing that we need to see here. This is one of the things that confirmed what we were seeing going on. And what we had he would have of always occurring.
We already have evidence going down this road pretty significantly. This has backed it up. It hasn't reached to the level yet. That is to what I expect. I set the standard so high, for this. Because I assume what they've done is so terrible, during these election periods.
That we haven't seen that evidence yet. I think it will come out. We'll see it eventually.
So far, we haven't seen it. We have only seen 80 percent of what was going on. Not 100 percent.
GLENN: So here's why this is important. If you are in with the it crowd, the it crowd controls really, the narrative still in America.
Because the New York Times and television and everything else, still is caught in that.
Now, I don't know if the American people are still caught in that. But unless you get both sides, talking about something, it's not going to filter down to the average American.
Okay? And here's -- here's the really interesting part. First, they said, that this was a conspiracy. That that wasn't happening.
Now that we have the evidence and the actual documents to show that it is that way. What do they do?
Now, I am somebody that I just don't believe in coincidence. I just don't.
Sometimes, wow. What a coincidence. Sometimes, but I always look first, hmm. That's a weird coincidence. Are we seeing this anyplace else?
For instance, when they talked right after COVID started. They were all saying the same thing. And then they all started to say, the new normal. And then it went from the new normal to the great reset. And everybody -- all of a sudden, one day, everybody is talking about The Great Reset. As a positive. And they're not explaining what The Great Reset is. They're just saying, we need a Great Reset. Do you remember any of that?
This is what happened over the weekend. To take Taibbi. And destroy him as a journalist, they accuse him of PR work. He is just being a public relations person. To whom?
To, quote, the richest man in the world.
And what does that make it? Sad. Embarrassing. Humiliating.
Now, let me go through some of these things. This is the prime time editor for Mediaite. Matt Taibbi went from a fierce and intrepid journalist taking aims at the wealthy and powerful, to doing mundane PR for the world's richest huckster. Embarrassing.
Ben Collins. Senior report for NBC.
Imagine throwing it all away to do PR work for the richest person in the world.
Bloomberg. Editors are great at not just because they make your work sharper, but because they will ask things like, hey, should you be doing PR work for the richest man on the planet? MSNBC. Imagine volunteering to do online PR work for the world's richest man.
Let's see. Media Matters.
Matt Taibbi thread is a great example of overwriting when you don't have the kids, but you want to admit you're just doing PR for the world's richest person.
Matt McDermott. Doing PR for the richest person in the world should come as no surprise.
The correspondent for the New York Times, CNN, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, and as a host on Al Jazeera. Tweeted, Matt Taibbi, what sad, disgraceful downfall. I swear. He did good work in the old days. Should be a cautionary tale for everyone. Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on earth.
Oh, my gosh. The editor-in-chief. Something called popula.com, wrote one minute, you're scouring Goldman Sachs. The next, you're doing PR for the richest man in the world. Funny.
It goes on and on and on.
They all said the same thing. They're doing -- he's doing PR work for the richest man in the world. So what they're doing is, he sold out.
But did Matt sell out?
I mean, Matt left the mainstream media for a reason. What was that reason?
Bari Weiss left the mainstream media for a reason. What was that reason?
What was it? To sell out? Or to be able to tell the truth, that they saw, without some editor going, nah. That Hunter Biden is not really a story. Because it's a conspiracy.
No. No. It turns out, that the FBI was lying to you. It wasn't a conspiracy.
It is a big deal. Now, Elon Musk has put the Democrats on notice. He said that there's more smoking guns, to come.
He also said, he's not going to sign autographs, anymore. And he doesn't -- he doesn't want to be in crowds anymore.
He's -- he's a little concerned for his health. And I don't think it's because he's a smoker. He believes that he's living in some sort of a spy novel. And I think he -- he might be.
By the way, according to the Daily Wire, it looks like they may have interfered at Twitter. May have interfered in the Brazilian election as well.
Interesting. It's almost as if, these public/private partnerships, between those who want to control the world, and those who are the mouthpiece for the world, are seeing the opportunity by coming together and working together to make sure that the little people know exactly who they should vote for, and what they should think.