RADIOAugust 02, 2022

5 war possibilities for China, Taiwan, & U.S. involvement

China seems to be on the offensive, thanks to Nancy Pelosi’s pre-announced trip to Taiwan. Glenn and Jason Buttrill, chief researcher for The Glenn Beck Program, war-game five possible scenarios between the two Asian nations. They discuss whether or not the U.S. is ‘obligated’ to back Taiwan, and what America’s foreign policy strategy has been regarding this conflict for decades. Either way, Glenn says, the world continues to destabilize and NOW is the time to pray for our country.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I'm 18 years old. I'm working at WPGC in Washington, DC. And I can see the light on top of the Washington monument. So I'm at ground zero. Ronald Reagan is in office. And there's something -- I don't remember what it was. But a confrontation with the Soviet Union. And it was really serious. And I remember keeping the door to the teletype in my studio open. Teletype is how we used to get the news. And it had bells on it. And a ten-bell event would be nuclear war. And I kept that propped open, so I could hear those bells and count the bells. And we got as high as I think six bells. And I would count them. Because I knew. And I thought, I'm at ground zero. This could be over in ten minutes. I haven't felt that way, really until this administration. You know, even after September 11th, I remember feeling on September 11th. Boy, I don't know what they're going to do. But it wasn't a fear of nuclear war or all out war, over the whole world. We're approaching that kind of -- of place. We now have -- do we have the live footage? This is -- they're tracking Nancy Pelosi's plane. We can show it to you. She's at about 10,000 feet. Headed towards Taiwan. She has avoided the restricted airspace over the South China Sea. However, China has just closed the airspace above the Taiwan strait. And they are -- they're at least flexing their muscles. If you look at what China is sending out, online. You are seeing military being moved. You have the aircraft carriers from China, moving out of their home ports. And headed towards Taiwan. I don't know what's going to happen. We have a guy who actually is, I mean, somewhat of kind of an expert on this area. Working for us. He's our chief researcher. And head writer for the Glenn Beck Program. Jason Buttrill. Hello, Jason. How are you?

JASON: Hey, Glenn. Doing good.

GLENN: So, Jason, help me out on -- how serious is this, with China, do you think?

JASON: I think it's very serious. Especially considering the symbolic meaning of Taiwan. Taiwan is very, very symbolic to the Chinese/Communist Party. This has been an issue since, you know, the communists took over, really. So this is probably one of the most crazy, ambiguous treaties we've ever had. The Taiwan relations act. The most ambiguous thing ever. Which makes Kirby's remarks yesterday, kind of odd to come out and say, we don't support independents so publicly. I mean, I've read the Taiwan relations act, cover to cover. The ambiguity. Just saying it's ambiguous is even an understatement. It's the equivalent of one of the most confusing Christopher Nolan movies. Take Inception. Take Interstellar. Take Tenants. And then have 30 different people try to describe what it actually means. I actually think it -- that's basically what we're talking about here.

GLENN: So this is -- Taiwan and China are at war with each other. It's a civil war. And it happened in the 1950s. So this has been going back and forth from the 1950s. But it is -- it's coming to a head, and that's because as China rises in power, they think the odds are that they can take the United States of America. I don't think that's possible yet. But I think we're maybe five years. Two to five years away from they believe actually being able to take Taiwan. And call our bluff. Or just fight the war. You think that's accurate?

JASON: No. Absolutely. China sees Taiwan like they see Hong Kong. When they made the deal with Hong Kong. They say, oh, China has no right to do this. It is supposed to be two systems in one country. Yeah, but it was in that agreement, that China would one day take control, and it would be one system. People usually leave that part out. They just decided to accelerate their plans. They see Taiwan as one China. And they believe it's rightfully theirs. And their plan is to always take it. They just don't have the military capabilities. Now, moving towards what we're seeing now. The thing that would always tip us off. And the in Taiwan relations act. We said, if you try to coerce militarily, to try to change Taiwan and take it. We will respond. And President Reagan, I believe in 1980, and 1982. Reassured after the 1972 Taiwan act. Reassured, hey. We're still giving you weapons. We're still coming to your definition. So this is a very, very old agreement that they had. And, yes, we will go and respond. But the thing that's always kept the things kind of open. And that we can see what's going on in the future. Is that it would take a tremendous Chinese military buildup, to be put in place, before we would -- the actual action. We would see it, the buildup. We would go and respond to it. What Pelosi has done. And let's put this into context. The Speaker of the House has just undermined her presidents -- in the same party. His foreign the policy. She's taken it on herself, to manipulate foreign policy. It's absolutely unprecedented. She has no right to do this. It's not under the duties of the Speaker of the House. But her actions are allowing this military buildup to happen. It's accelerating an already accelerated plan, that we've seen with China and Hong Kong.

GLENN: I tell you, it is truly frightening. And, by the way, the reason why Taiwan is important to the United States. Is if Taiwan falls, we then are pretty much out of Asia. The next country to fall would be New Zealand and Australia. And China would just overrun all of that hemisphere. And between Russia and China -- you know, that would be a very difficult match for us to even stand shoulder to shoulder with. Okay. So let me give you a couple of scenarios. And I want to hear what you think are the best scenarios. These are five different scenarios that have been put together by a Taiwanese based researcher. So the first one, minimalist approach. The people's army occupies Jemen or Matsu (phonetic) islands, as well as Taiwan's islands in the South China Sea. Maybe even the (inaudible) islands. They declare part or all of the Taiwan Strait, a no-go zone. They just did that. And they -- give it a no-go zone to all military shipping. This would be fairly easy, et cetera, et cetera. And it would not overcommit them. It would just be a step up. Scenario number two. Hybrid warfare. Some sort of partial naval and aerial blockade of Taiwan, intended to interfere with the economy.

Combined with stepped up harassments, such as direct flyovers, which they did last night while we were all sleeping. Incursions into maritime space, by China's military. They might also have cyber attacks, which they just did, about two hours before Pelosi's plane was taking off. Scenario number three. A serious attack, but no invasion. This would involve air and sea warfare. No boots on the ground. Full airline and Naval blockade. Protracted set of naval and aerial battles, designed to degrade Taiwan's military, combined with ballistic missile attacks on military targets. Scenario number four. A real, actual invasion. Scenario number five. Short of a nuclear attack, would be the worst case. Full air and sea blockade. Massive ballistic missile attacks on military targets. Cyber attack. Aggressive naval and ariel attacks. And boots on the ground. I don't think that one is even possible right now. But maybe it is. Which one -- or do you have another scenario that you think is more likely to come from this?

JASON: So to point out, I think every single one of those scenarios, would break the Taiwan Relations Act, which would require an American response. So if they're thinking about doing any of those, they're ready for war. Just really quick, if I could remember all of them. The first one, occupying some of those islands in the Air Defense Zone. We already -- occupying any of those islands, including the Pengu Islands. Those are part of the Peskador (phonetic) Islands, which is specifically named, in the Taiwan Relations Act, as part of Taiwan. So that's a huge -- that's a huge, you know -- we're getting involved, basically. If they do that.

GLENN: That is -- or that is a progressive way for China to do it. Where they're not taking all of it. They're just moving in. And then like Republicans always do. You just back up. Okay. Well, that's okay. Okay. Well, we'll get it on the next boat. That's a progressive tactic. And America would probably not go to war, over something like that. I would hope.

STU: Yeah. We should point out real quick, Nancy Pelosi has just landed in Taiwan. So that's -- just watched it live here. As it -- so whatever game is being played, is going to be played.

GLENN: So bizarre.

JASON: The other scenarios pretty much -- many of them involved economic hybrid warfare, or blockades. Economic hybrid warfare was not mentioned back then in the Taiwan relations act. I would put that in the same category as blockade. That's also mentioned. So if any of those things happen, we are then, according to the texts, obligated to respond. So we're responding anyway.

GLENN: If they pretty much do anything. Even the lightest, most minimal approach, they would be in violation of this act. Our treaty, if you will. And it puts us, you know, into action. And calls our bluff.

I am terrified what the Biden administration would do. Because the Biden administration is absolutely toothless. We have no allies. What we've done in Russia has only benefited Russia and hurt everyone else. I think these guys could overreact. And do something very provocative, that in the end, will just destroy us. What should be our response, Jason.

JASON: Oh, gosh. Likable I said, this is such a complicated issue. It's so -- I hate to use the word again, ambiguous. Let me just go to this point. I think that -- I don't think China will do any of those things. I think China will use this as an excuse to do a massive military buildup. That's what I think. And we already saw --

GLENN: Massive military exercise.

JASON: Massive military exercise. Oh, we're just going to position all these things here. We're going to put all these boats here. We're going to keep these aircraft carriers over here. That way, it puts us off balance on, we don't know how far we've escalated their time line. That's why I think, this is such a horrible -- not only dangerous, but horrible move by Nancy Pelosi in doing this. Is you -- you're bringing right to the surface, what we think we have ten years to plan for. Or prepare for. That's what I think will happen. I think we'll see a lot more military buildup in that area. It will be hard to know when they actually attack. Now, if they do any of those things. I think they're obligated to respond in some way. I'll leave it up to them. To decide, what is -- how to balance it all out. They're obviously not the ones right now, in charge to do that. But what -- we're signaling to everyone else in the region, that, hey, the time of you being able to count us. That's over now. So, yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: I will tell you, Jason, thank you so much for your analysis and, of course, we'll be watching it. And if you -- if you watch and see some things, let me know and tweet it out today. And Facebook post. Because this is something that is ongoing. Thank you, Jason. For your help. I will tell you, that now is the time to pray for your country. And let me just remind you. The Republicans always get the warmonger label. Let's just say that the Republicans have changing on war. We've learned our lessons, I think. And Donald Trump, the world was at peace. Look at how fast that has deteriorated. We could be at -- in a proxy war, with both Russia and China. By tomorrow! It's insanity.

Will the Conclave Elect a RADICAL Pope to Follow Francis?

The Conclave to elect the Catholic Church’s next Pope has begun. But will the next Pope be “conservative” and orthodox, will he follow in Pope Francis’ footsteps and be more friendly to leftist and globalist ideas, or will he be an “anti-Pope,” as some Catholics are claiming Francis was? Glenn speaks with LifeSiteNews co-founder and CEO, John-Henry Westen, who reviews the most likely candidates for the papacy and why he believes the “anti-Pope” claims against Francis are not ungrounded.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

Did the New York Times Just Admit It Curates Your Truth?

A recent New York Times hit piece is a perfect example of why many Americans no longer trust the newspaper. Glenn compares the piece, which criticizes “The MartyrMade Podcast” host Darryl Cooper’s revisionist history, with the New York Times’ own “1619 Project,” written by Nikole Hannah Jones. Glenn disagrees with both people about major historical events. But the Times, with its elitist hypocrisy, pushed Jones’ attempt to frame America as a racist nation since its inception as unquestionable truth. “I’m not defending [Cooper or Jones],” Glenn says. “I’m defending the idea that We the People decide what’s true, and that takes work and curiosity…The minute you let somebody else decide what you’re allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to take on something else that I don't know. Maybe I should just keep my big, fat mouth shut.

Because I think this one will piss off everybody. But it's the truth. There was a story in the New York Times. The podcaster asking for you to side with history's villains. It was in the New York Times. Let me read something.

Darryl Cooper is no scholar. But legions of fans, many on the right, can't seem to resist what he presents as hidden truths.

All of a sudden, everyone was coming for Darryl Cooper. There were the newspaper columnists. The historians. The Jewish groups. Repugnant says the chairman of Yadveshev (phonetic), Israel's Holocaust museum in a statement.

Even the Biden White House released a statement, calling him a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda. So it was for a time for Mr. Cooper. One of the most popular podcaster in the country, to do what he does best. Hit record.

In a special on his history program, Martyr Made. Mr. Cooper addressed the controversy, which had exploded out of September 2nd appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show.

The podcast started by the former Fox News host. At first, Mr. Cooper, a gifted historic storyteller, but not a trained historian, defended the claims he had made on Mr. Carlsen's show. One that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of the war. Ridiculous. Not by implication. Adolf Hitler.

The two -- and two, that millions had died in Nazi-controlled Eastern Europe because Nazis had not adequately planned to feed them. Okay. Not true.

He then said, the story goes on to say, I don't know if we retracted some of that stuff. This emotional ventriloquism is part of Mr. Cooper's approach and appeal. On TikTok, a fan praised him as one of the best historians of our time, because he tries to go out of his way, to understand the perspective of everyone involved in a situation.

These critics have probably helped make Mr. Cooper bigger than ever. He's been the most subscribed to history newsletter on Substak. One spot ahead of the evident economic historian, Adam HEP Toos in the wake of the Rogan interview. Martyrmade. Blah, blah, blah.

Okay. So they go on and on and on. To talk about how this just can't stand. I mean, we've got to -- there's got to be some sort of filter. And, you know, Joe Rogan just can't have on, whoever he wants to have on. That's the problem!

Is it? New York Times. Is that the problem?

Hmm, that's really interesting.

Now, let me just look and -- and let me just look in the past here, and see if we've had this exact same problem, with anybody else. Because the person that came to mind was not Darryl Cooper, but Nicole Hannah Jones. Because I think those two are the same coin, and the coin is counterfeit.

Just opposite sides of the same coin. The martyr made podcast spins a tale of grievance and distrust. And it's wrapped in enough fact to keep it plausible.

But there are some facts in there. Okay.

Jones, she did the 1619 Project.

She did the same thing in reverse. Except, I think she's actually worse.

I mean, because I think she made up almost everything in that. She recasts American history. As racist from the very inception of the country.

Neither one of them is telling the whole truth. Neither one of them. Neither wants to, I think. They're both in the business of narrative, and not history.

So am I. But I tried to be fair.

The real problem is not these two.

Honestly, it's the New York Times.

Because in their Sunday styles, write-up on Cooper.

The Times poses as a concerned observer.

Wary of growing influence among the disaffected right.

Why are we disaffected. Why is the right disaffected?

We're disaffected because you have tried to take our country from us.

Everything that we believe. Our history.

Our values. Our traditions. And you've tried to denigrate them. And destroy them, every step of the way.

And you've done them with one lie, right after another.

Okay?

Why are they framing him. Not with facts. But with suspicion.

Not because he's -- dishonest or not dishonest. But because he's popular. They clutch their pearls, because he has an audience. And only the New York Times can have that you audience.

But where that was concern, when they did -- when they gave an audience to Nicole Hannah Jones.

And gave her a Pulitzer for a project now so discredited by the very historians that are now talking about Cooper!

Where was the caution when they declared that 1619, not 1776, was the true founding of the nation? They didn't question her authority. They didn't say, well, she's not a historian. They printed it. In fact, they taught it, and endorsed it. They platformed it in schools!

That's different than anything that Joe Rogan is doing. They platformed it in schools.

So let's be clear. Okay?

I think both Cooper and Jones are wrong.

They may have points worth considering.

But I think that they get it fundamentally wrong, in a few places.

They are looking at facts to sell the story.

And not necessarily reveal the truth.

Now, maybe I'm being too cynical.

But that's the way I see it. And I'm not condemning either one.

I'm condemning all of those on the left, or the right, that are now doing the same thing that the New York Times did with -- with Cooper, but didn't do with Anna Nicole Jones. Only one of those two was lauded by the New York Times, as legitimate. And a necessary corrective, even though, it was all a lie! Made up!

So that's what -- when I'm -- I'm reading that op-ed in the New York Times.

I can't take the -- oh, my gosh. The hypocritical nature of it. Just, blood shoots out of my eyes.

Because that's what the New York Times is actually saying. Don't you little people understand. We must decide what stories are acceptable. Not you!

Not somebody like Joe Rogan. We will decide. Which distortion are his virtuous and which ones are dangerous. Not you.

We get to choose the false prophets that get a column, which -- and which ones are called conspiracy theorists. We, at the New York Times, we in the media!

And athat is the problem! This isn't about the authors. Okay. First Amendment gives him a right to say whatever they want.

You may not like. You don't like it, stop listening.

Well, but other people might listen. Yeah. Well, other people might listen.

Maybe we should pay more attention to our education in our schools. Maybe we should pay more attention, so we don't become somebody that is a dummy, themselves. And are -- because this is the problem!

We don't have a press that exposes lies anymore. We have a press that curates the lies.

I really think this is why I started collecting -- you know, we have now, the third largest collection of founding indictments, in the American journey experience.

Along with David Barton's wall builders.

It is -- it's only behind the national archives. And the library of Congress.

Most people don't know it. Because, you know, we don't talk about it yet.

Beginning in '26. We will be making a big deal out of it.

We also have the largest collection of pilgrim era artifacts and documents in the world.

The largest. So I can tell you what happened in Jamestown in 1619.

I can tell you this, the ship that Hannah HEP Nicole Jones talks about. There were no slaves on that ship.

How do I know?

We have the manifest!

No slaves. Hmm. That seems problematic, doesn't it?

And the Mayflower did not launch a system of slavery.

In fact, they fought against it.

We -- this is so crazy.

What the Pilgrims did against slavery was remarkable.

Remarkable. When a slave shipbuildingsly gave into their port, it was -- slavery was against the law. They called it man stealing.

It was against the law. As soon as the slave came into port. You could smell the slave ship. They knew exactly what it was. They marched and up arrested the captain of the ship.

They put anymore irons. And put him in jail.

And these people, who were already paying 15 percent of everything they make. These poor people.

15 percent of everything they make, to a king they can't be they despise. But they paid it, because they wanted to just stay alive.

They took up a collection from each other. Not outside. From each other.

Got a new captain. Refueled. Restocked the ship. And sent those people. Those slaves back to Africa, so they could be free!

That's who our pilgrims were. Don't believe me? You don't have to take my word for it.
We have the evidence. Please, you know, the longest running treaty with Native Americans happened with our Pilgrims. And you know who broke it? Not the white man. It was the Native Americans! And you know why?

Because after years and years of the Pilgrims and the Native Americans getting along, Christianity was starting to seep into their culture. And they needed to go to war with the tribe. And the war that the way they used to fight it, the Native Americans, it was okay to enslave your enemy.

In fact, you needed to.

You could torture them, after you won!

Just to make a point. And then you would enslave anybody you wanted.

And Christianity said, no. You can't do either one of those things.

And so the native Americans, that were part of this tribe, that were and friends under this treaty, with the Pilgrims. They started telling their chief. You know, we can't do these things.

And the chief got so pissed. Because he was like, we're fighting a war.

We fought it like they always fought it.

That they broke the treaty. Did you know that?

No. They were just horrible. We stole the land.

Ay-yi-yi. Did America live up to its ideals?

No! Has anybody, ever?

Have you? Has the pope? Has anybody really lived up to their ideals all the time?

No! But you have ideals, and that's what matters.

By the way, on the other side, I also happen to own a few original Nazi documents, from the actual perpetrators. I've got documents from the engineer that actually calculated how much Zyklon B it would take to murder a room full of Jews, okay?

It wasn't because they didn't want to -- they didn't have enough food.

This was calculated. I have the final prescription signed by Dr. Mengele, for a thousand liters of lumen that will for the so-called children's hospital. That's how the right was killing the undesirables in the children's hospital.

They didn't do it in a frenzy. It wasn't a riot. It wasn't out of desperation. It was silence out of lab coats, and beauracrats and experts signing off, and the press like the New York Times refusing to say a word about it. The scariest people are not the ones in the streets. They weren't. They were the ones with titles. With offices, with press credentials.

They were the ones with the doctorates.
They were the people who decided what could be published.

Who could be punished. What could be known? What could be said?

And that's the danger that we're staring down, right now. Not from cringe theorists on a podcast. Not even from overzealous academics with a Pulitzer.

But from the institutions that bless one distortion, and condemn the other.

Not based on truth. But based on usefulness.

Is it useful to our side?

I just want you to know. This is my stance on this. and make this very, very clear.

The First Amendment does not exist to protect comfortable speech. It doesn't exist to protect Cooper, as opposed to Jones. It exists to protect both of them!

It protects uncomfortable points of view.

Things you do not like to hear. And disagreement. It protects people who are absolutely wrong, and even those who are lying!

It protects the process, so you can figure it out. There is no licensed priesthood in our country.

You know, that are -- the priesthood of truth-tellers. No official ministry of facts.

That's where countries go wrong. The Times should be exposing both sides of these stories.

Just like I'm doing.

The distortions of the right, and the left.

But instead, they become exactly what they've warned us about.

A newspaper that prints dogma, and not dialogue.

And the real problem here: No.

The real solution here is you. Jefferson warned that a man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Sorry. A man who reads nothing is better informed than a man who only reads the newspaper. Okay? I would say, the newspaper is today's social media.

Man who reads nothing is more well-educated than a man who just only reads social media.

But today we might say, better to be ignorant than confidently misled by trusted media.

They see themselves not as a watch to go. But as a shepherd. And we are the sheep.

So I am not defending either one.

I am defending the idea that we, the people. Not the institutions. Not the elites. Not the New York Times.

Not Joe Rogan.

You decide what's true. And that takes work and that takes curiosity. Maybe the other guy is wrong.

I don't know. Maybe I don't have the whole story either. I don't know.

Look it up. Because the minute you let somebody else decide, what you're allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think!

What Christian Movies Can Learn from Serial Killer Films

Christian movies can learn a whole lot from serial killer murder mysteries, The Daily Wire’s Andrew Klavan tells Glenn. While Christian films tend to have good messages, they don’t often touch on the dark realities of this fallen world we live in – realities that even the Bible addresses through the stories of Cain and Abel and many others. Instead, Klavan argues, he gets more biblical truths out of movies like “Halloween” and “The Silence of the Lambs” and books like “Crime and Punishment” than he does films like “God’s Not Dead.” Klavan tells Glenn how he finds God in the literature of darkness, a topic he further delves into in his new book, “The Kingdom of Cain.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Andrew Klavan. Host of the Andrew Klavan program. The Andrew Klavan Show.

How are you, sir?

ANDREW: I'm good. Good to see you.

GLENN: Good to see you. I don't think I've seen you out of your element ever.

ANDREW: Yes, I've been many times to the studio.

GLENN: Have you? Well, they were memorable.

ANDREW: I get this reaction a lot.

GLENN: No. I just love you. I love you. And I got to tell you, the best compliment I could give you, your son is remarkable.

ANDREW: He is remarkable. He is.

GLENN: I hope some day, somebody will say that by my children. Really remarkable.

You and your wife are amazing parents.

ANDREW: Oh, well, thank you.

GLENN: So tell me about the Kingdom of Cain, and talk down to me.

ANDREW: It's a really simple book, and very entertaining, because it's about the movies that we all love.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. He says this. Let me read this to you, Stu, and see if you understand what this is.

STU: The Kingdom of Cain looks at three murders in history, including the first murder. Cain's killing of his brother Abel. And at the art created from imaginative engagement, from those horrific events by artists ranging from Dostoyevsky to Hitchcock. To make beauty out of the world, as it is shot through with evil and injustice and suffering. It is the task, not just of the artist, but Klavan argues of every life rightly lived.

Examining how the transformation occurs in art. Grants us a vision of how it could happen in our life. What is this about?

STU: I don't know what you're missing.

ANDREW: I will tell you, I'm a crime writer. Right? I get this letter all the time. Constantly. It says, you call yourself a Christian.

That part is true, and yet you write about horrific things. You right about murder.

Prostitutes and gangsters, and all this stuff.

Why do you do that?

And the reason is very simple. I believe that God is a central fact of reality. And I believe that any artist who speaks truthfully about reality, will speak about God.

And so what I did. I took three murders. Three very famous murders.

I showed how they inspired works of art. Over and over and over again.

They're -- not just one work of art. But they kept coming back, inspiring other works of art. And how those works of art actually speak about something, that happens to a society, when it begins to lose its faith. As our society has certainly done.

You know, and they chart those works of art, and some of them are like the stupidest little horror movie.

And yet, the guy who is making that horror movie understood what he was talking about.

And can show you. If you go back, for instance, and watch a slasher movie. Like Halloween, which is a very scary movie.

It's actually about the fall of the end of faith. And how it destroys sexual responsibilities.

So it takes place in the suburb. Have you seen it?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Yeah. I have seen it.

ANDREW: Where there are no moms. And the dads are very weak.

And this knife-wielding crazy man comes back. And basically preys on kids having sex while nobody is watching.

And it's a very, very stark picture. I bet if you asked the director what he was doing, he would tell you that. It's right in the movie, when he see that. But you have to be watching this.

The thing is, these movies are -- not just movies. But novels.

The arts are -- really reveal the conscience of a culture.

GLENN: Yes.

ANDREW: And so taking the way they look at murder, tells us things that are bad about our culture.

But it also tells us about ways we want to go in the future.

The role, for instance, of psychiatrists in -- in these films.

Films. Most of these films are based on murder, committed by Ed Dean in the 1950s, a guy who was constant. Who used to kill women.

Right?

And then dress up in their bodies. Just like in Silence of the Lambs. That inspired Psycho.

It inspired a really good horror movie called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Even though it's a crazy title. It's actually a good movie. The Silence of the Lambs. All of these movies grow out of that one murder.

And what it's about? It's about confusion. It's about sexual. About gender. You know, we don't see that going around nowadays. In fact, it's everywhere. In fact, these movies were made in the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s and on. And so they were predicting, as art often does, what was going to happen, and explaining why.

GLENN: So do you think Alford Hitchcock knew that this was coming? Or he was just a good storyteller?

ANDREW: You are a good story teller. Who was it? T. S. Eliot said a great poet writes himself, and in writing himself, he writes his time.

And I think that that's what happens. These artists basically bring something out of themselves. But it reveals where we are all are. And it reveals where we are going. If you see where we are, you can tell where we're going.

That's why the book does not just concentrate on the darkness. It actually says. What do you do?

How do you react? Now that you know what's happening. How do you react to those things in a creative, joyful way?

Because this is -- the Bible doesn't say things will be great. The Bible says. Yeah.

GLENN: That's not the main point.

ANDREW: Being crucified. And at the same time, it says, rejoice ever more.

GLENN: Right.

ANDREW: So one of the things that really bothers me about Christian movies.

Is they don't really represent life.

If you do a Christian movie, that has real things in it, you get slammed.

Why would you put it in?

Why was there sex? Why was there murder?

One of the major influences that turned me to Christ, when I was 19 years old. That took three decades to kick in.

But it was reading Crime and Punishment. About an axe murderer. And about a prostitute who basically turns this axe murderer's life around.

If you walked into a Christian bookstore today.

And say, can I have that book about the axe murderer and the hooker? Yeah, they would look at you like you were nuts. Because Dostoyevsky was a great artist and a great Christian.

One of the truly deep and interesting Christians in history.

He revealed something about the philosophies that were rising up at that time.

And that are still with us today. And the philosophies that later became spoken out by Nietzsche. And Nietzsche affected all of the leftist philosophers that you and I have loved so much. And have done so many good things for our survival.

GLENN: So let's pretend somebody didn't read that by Dostoyevsky or whatever his name is.

And tell us the story -- and tell us the story. And exactly what -- what he was teaching.

ANDREW: Well, the idea is God is dead.

And therefore, instead of having this horrible Christian philosophy. That is nice to the poor. And the weak, and has charity. And compassion.

We need strong special men. Like Napoleon, for instance. Who will make their own law.

And this man, in this story. Crime and Punishment says, well, if I can make my own law, I can murder somebody.

And it will be a sin. It won't be wrong.

And then he actually accomplishes this murder.

And finds a way. Oh, wait. I've actually shattered the moral order. And now my life is spiraling out of control.

Now, Nietzsche wrote his philosophy, which is the exact philosophy in his book.

After Dostoyevsky wrote the novel, and then his philosophy inspired two murderers in America, named Leopold and Lowe. This was called the crime of the century. The crime of the 20th century.

GLENN: I don't remember it.

ANDREW: I know, nobody remembers it now, but it was one of the biggest crimes of the century. It inspired countless movies and television shows.

It was two kids, they were -- they were rich, gay Jewish kids in the suburbs.

GLENN: What year?

ANDREW: This is 19 -- I want to say 30 -- 30 or 40.

GLENN: Okay.

ANDREW: Yeah. It was the '30s. I'm sorry.

And they decided, well, we're Superman. Like Nietzsche. They read Nietzsche. And they thought, yes. This is what we want to be.

One of them. We will commit the perfect murder, to show we could do it.

They took a kid at random, who they know, and killed them.

GLENN: This is Rope.

ANDREW: Exactly. Exactly. And Rope became the Hitchcock film. And also inspired Compulsion, which is another movie.

Almost a true movie about it. Pops up again and again.

Two people who said, we will commit the perfect murder. Because we're superior.

If you look for it, you will find it in one story after another.

And it's based on the idea, that there's no God. And therefore, anything is permissible, and strong men have to make the rules.

GLENN: That's one of the best movies out of Hitchcock.

Nobody even knows it. Great movie from Hitchcock. And great movie with Jimmy Stewart and just really -- and disturbing.

ANDREW: Yeah, and written -- the original play was written by the guy who also wrote a play called Gaslight, which is where we get the word gaslighting.

So I talk all about these works of art. These works and movies. And listen, I think it's an entertaining book, Glenn.

GLENN: I love your work. I love your work. Most people, if you don't know who Andrew Klavan is.

You've written movies. I mean, you've written just some thrilling novels.

And novels that have been made into movies. And I'm a huge, huge fan.

But, I mean, you know, you are talking to mice here.

ANDREW: I try to just make it about things that people like and enjoy.

GLENN: Yeah. So what is -- what is the lesson that we learn from -- from all of this?

ANDREW: Well, I think the most important lesson, if I can call it that, in the book. Is that the beauty has something to do with the answer to evil.

You know, one of the things that keeps people from believing in God. They say, there's so much evil in the world.

How can a good God, allow this evil to exist?

And at the end of the book, the last third of the book. Which is a very personal statement about what I do, to basically live joyfully in the world, that I can see is evil.

It ends with looking at the statue of Michelangelo. Which is one of the most beautiful works --

GLENN: Beautiful.

ANDREW: But it think about what it's about, Glenn. It's about a mother with her dead son. It is a world with a dead God. It's the worst movement in human history. And yet Michelangelo, a man, made it beautiful.

And my question at the end of the book, is if a man can take that misery, that suffering, that evil, and turn it into beauty, what can God do with the world that we're living in now?

When he works with the marvel of eternity. And so I work my way to that point, by going to the movies that we watch, the stories that we read.

And why we're so fascinated with murder.

You know, think about try crime. This is what this is about.

STU: Why are we?

ANDREW: Because it is the borderline, where you cannot say, there's something right about this.

It's the place where I suddenly realize that the moral order has its great points, but it also has a very stark --

GLENN: So explain to me. Explain to me why shows like, let's say.

Yellowstone.

Are so satisfying, because you're kind of like -- kind of like seeing that guy taking to the train station.

You know what I mean?

You know that it's wrong. But you're kind of in there. You're kind of like -- you know.

And you feel. At least I do. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people watch. Yeah. That's fine.

I watch it. I don't like the fact that I kind of -- I'm rooting for them.

ANDREW: I think the best art does that to you. I really enjoy this. That actually tells me something about myself, that I don't want to think about.

GLENN: Yeah.

ANDREW: See, a lot of people think art is like a sugar pill, that they used to give you a little lesson in life. A little parable of sorts. I don't think that's what it is at all.

I think it's an experience that you really can't have in your life, that broadens the way you look at life. Broadens your view of humanity. So when you get Christian stories like God Is Not Dead. I don't want to pick on anybody.

GLENN: But you'll pick on them.

ANDREW: I will pick on them. The guy is hit by a car. He says, well, at least he was saved.

I think, really? We can't just say -- you can't call his wife say, and say, this is a sad moment. Let me grieve when people die? We can't say we're horrified by death and afraid?

So I want Christian art that deals with life in a real way.

And shows that people who are afraid. And people who have evil thoughts, and people who want to justify murder. And they -- there are moments when we all sort of think -- but if you go off into a room by yourself and ask, how can I make the perfect world?

Within two minutes, so help me.

You will be committing mass murder in your mind.

Let me see. Well, first, I have to go to rid of these people because these people can't be reformed. You'll wipe them out, right?

So that's who we all are.

When he start to see that. I believe that's actually a layer on top of who we really.

I believe who we really are is who Christ wants us to be. That's the question.

How do you get through that layer?

That's what artists do for us. They show us our true selves.

And lead our conscience to the place we're supposed to go.

GLENN: All right. Our natural soul is who Christ wants us to be.

ANDREW: Right.

GLENN: And we're encapsulated in this flesh. And the natural man is an enemy to that. And it's the battle back and forth.

ANDREW: And that's what art is. That battle. That's where drama comes from. That's where tragedy comes from.

You know, one of the stories I mentioned in the Kingdom of Cain is Macbeth, because it's such a great story about murder.

And it ends with the most beautiful speech about nihilism, about things, nothing makes sense. Nothing is worth anything. Right? Life is a tale told by an idiot. But because you're watching a play, you understand, Shakespeare is not saying that. A guy has detached himself from the moral order is saying that. He's lost the meaning of life, because he's detached himself from the meaning of life.

And so studying murder and writing art about murder. Takes you to the most serious questions about who we are. And who we really are. And what we really want. And how we -- you know, that inner battle that goes on. Which is to me, the source of drama.

This is PROOF the Democratic Party is NOT Becoming Centrist

The leftist leadership of Washington State recently made some terrifying moves that caused Glenn to warn any conservatives living there: “Get the HELL OUT!” Glenn and Stu discuss some of these totalitarian moves, including the likely failure of a bill to limit the governor’s powers during a medical emergency. Democrats have also passed a “Tesla tax” on EV credits and a bill that prioritizes criminal illegal immigrants over US citizens for pardons. If this is what the Democratic Party is already doing in Washington, what will be next?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things that I wanted to talk to you about. If you're living in Washington State. May I just say, get the hell out now! I've said --

STU: The entire state?

GLENN: The entire state. Get out of the state.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And I'm dead serious on that. You're living in a state that has gone absolutely insane. First of all, we talked about this before. And nobody is really talking about this.

The medical thing that they just passed in Washington State. And they passed it, and the governor has signed it. And basically, it says, if there's a medical emergency. We can do whatever we want to you.

Now, remember, this is the state that was talking about building like little internment camps for people who wouldn't get vaccinated last time. Okay. They were talking about that. If you think they won't do that, you're out of your mind. You're crazy. And so it says, if the governor decides that there's a medical emergency, statewide emergency, that the state, based on -- love this one.

Based on scientific experts, they will dictate what happens to every -- you know, every individual. What you have to get -- if scientific experts tell you, you have to take this, you will be forced to take that. I'm not having my kids in that state. I'm not living in that state. Are you living in that state? Because they will do it.

They are telling you. After everything we went through in COVID. They're now doubling down and saying, yeah. By the way, we're going to code this into law.

STU: Really, the COVID era was such a great separator. You know, very roughly blue states and red states.

Where you saw what the approach was going to be. And you can make the decision as to which one you want to live in. When something like this goes down.

And I think people make that decision with their -- you know, California abandoned for places like Texas and Florida.

You know, that's I think really, really clear.

And I think what we've seen after the COVID separation there, you also have seen kind of a codification on both sides.

I mean, conservatives and red states have really gone out of their way to signal that they would not do this again. And they would do things differently than the other states would. And blue states are now codifying their side of that.

Which is, hey. If you don't listen to the science, then you -- we don't want you here.

And we're going to put in the law, that these sciences shall be followed next time.

Not, wait a minute. We made a big mistake. And those schools have closed and everything.

They're going the opposite way.

GLENN: They're going the opposite way.

They're saying their science is right.

STU: Which is horrible.

GLENN: Even if we don't get it wrong, we won't get it wrong next time.

We will follow the science.

Are you mad? Did you see what just happened?

STU: Even places like the New York Times are now admitting, school closings are completely crazy.

That's all happened, not just in our publications. But it's not just on our side of the debate, but on their side of the debate, in many ways.

GLENN: Get out. Get out.

Okay. So that's one of them.

The new Tesla tax. Just passed by Democrats in Washington State.

It cleared the house, 52-45, supported solely by Democrats. And it's to address the state's budget deficit. Okay?

Well, you know, all of these states that have been spending money like crazy. California, Washington State.

I'm not bailing you out. I tell you, I will -- I will march to secede, if this government is going to bail out the states that have been spending money out of control, while our states have been responsible.

I am not sending my tax dollars to support your state, because you went under.

I'm sorry.

It's not a suicide pact. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and because you are committing suicide, doesn't mean my state has to commit suicide.
I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it.

And that is a hard, fast line with me.

I'm not doing it.

When -- when New York and Illinois, and California, and Oregon, and Washington State, all are hemorrhaging, because they can't pay their bills.

Why should I have to pay for that? Why?
I don't live there. We've been preaching against it.

The red states have been trying to live within their means.

No! No!

I'm not cutting my own throat, so you don't ever learn a lesson.

So you just keep doing whatever it is, you're doing. When we're all living the hard way.
You know What that is?

That's TARP. That's the bailout of the big banks. Do you think the big banks learned a damn thing?

No. Not one. Not one.

Why? Because we, the taxpayers, had to bail their ass out! And so what did they do?

Well, just keep doing the same thing. They just put it on another name.

STU: They did learn that. They did learn that that's the way the world works. That's an important lesson.

GLENN: That's exactly right.

And that's why Donald Trump has got to win.
He has got to get this to win. He's got to turn this thing around, and turn it around quickly.

STU: What does that mean?

GLENN: He's got to break the back of this World Economic Forum, Great Reset. Big bank, bullcrap.

All these central -- he's got to break the back of that.

And reset it to an actual economy, that runs with the people. Not the big banks.

And the big businesses.

You know, they've built this -- this public/private structure.

And they're just -- and they're just going to -- all they're going to do is those people will continue to get rich.

If you're with them. You're fine. Let me tell you about the Tesla tax.

So lawmakers in California said that Tesla's profits need to go to a greater public purpose.

So the legislation targets the windfall profits that Tesla earns from selling ZEV credits. The proponents arguing that the revenue should been in public goals, like improvising EV accessibility, rather than enriching a single company. So they're taxing Tesla.

And if you think that that money is going to go to a build more electric stations, you're crazy!

How many billions did we just give to Joe Biden? So he could have what? Three electric stations? Please!

So now, this is socialism. This is socialism.

They are going after Tesla, declaring that they're -- their profits need to go to a greater public purpose.

Who are they to say that?

And all of your -- all of the people that live around you, in Seattle, and everywhere else. If you think you're going to beat this system, at this time, if they're still going down the road that hard, you ain't going to win.

You're not going to win. They're going to take that state down.

And you do not want to be anywhere near it.

I say this with a love for Seattle. I love Seattle

I love Washington. It's my home.

I love it. But I've got to tell you, get the hell out of there!

There's something else, that I have in the show prep today.

You can get it at GlennBeck.com.

There was another story about what they're doing in Washington State. About gosh. Where was it?

About -- about the removal of -- oh, gosh.

I can't find it now. It's another bill that they're passing.

That if you're in trouble, and I don't remember. I need to be of mind. Or you're trying to exonerate yourself or whatever.

Illegals are going to be ahead of you in that line.

Illegals are going to be ahead of you.

STU: Washington Democrats pass bill to give illegal aliens with convictions priority for pardons. HB1131 allows convicted non-citizens facing deportation, to skip the front of the clemency line ahead of US citizens.

PAT: Okay. Wait. What is that?

What is that? Is that a state that understands what America is? Is that a state that is pulling towards a greater America?

That is -- that -- get out of that state!

Sell your house and get out of that state.

I mean, this -- if this isn't -- I mean, if this isn't every warning, that you get in World War II. When you were living in Europe, you're like, wow.

I can't get any worse than this.

It's getting worse. It's getting worse, and they're telling you! Yeah, well, they'll never do it. What makes you think, they will never do that?

They would have done it if they had it encoded in the law. They would have done it the last time.

Do you think it's only Australia that would build concentration camps? By the way, I know. My family is from Washington State. My grandfather told me one time with tears running down his cheeks.

Only time I say my grandfather CIA cry.

On me time.

When he talked about the good Japanese family that was taken. And taken because we were at war with Japan.

And he never say them again.

That's all he said.

He was one of those, you know, greatest generation that ever talked about feelings. And tears running down his cheeks. And he talked about that.

I know what Washington State is capable of. They have done it before. You think they won't do it again?

Please. And now you have what's his name? David Hogg. You think that guy is not a round him up kind of guy?

He's now saying, he's going to spend all his money going against the old Democrats. And the old Democrats are saying, no.

You're not going to do. Who do you think is going to win that?

The old Democrats?

Do you really think that the Democrats are going to become less radical, or more radical?

They're going to be more radical. They're showing you.

They are showing you the path.

Let me just reiterate what I said, a minute ago.

I have great hope, in this administration.

I do. I have great hope.

I have great hope in the people. I have great hope that we can renew.

I have a great hope. That a golden age is right around the corner.

But I'm telling you, it is going to be a photo finish. Which one crosses the line first?

The left with their collapse, and their bonfires in the streets?

Or us, with the renewal of America, and a new promise, and a resetting back to the individual and not the collective.

I don't know which one wins.

We're still in this fight.

Don'ts get -- don't get.

Don't fool yourself. Donald Trump is in it. It's all great. No, no, don't fool yourself. And I know you're not.

I hear it from people. I hear it all the time. I didn't hear it like this in 2016. Donald Trump came in. And everybody is like, I'm fixed.
I'm not feeling that now.

I think people -- you know, I had a guy say to me, a good friend. A really reasonable guy.

I said, what do you want me to ask the president? He said, honestly? I said, yeah.

Is this even fixable? Can it be saved? At this point.

That took my breath away. This is a regular, regular reasonable guy. Whose not think like I do.

You know, where everything -- can it even be saved?

That's where we are, gang!

And don't forget it.

And when your government, in Washington State, is sending you a sign. Get the hell out of there.