RADIOAugust 13, 2024

Why Elon Musk’s Trump Interview Turned Western Leftists Into DICTATORS

Elon Musk’s interview with Donald Trump caused leftists around the world to panic. Media reports mocked X over the “technical problems” at the start of the event, while ignoring Musk’s claim of a DDoS attack. A European Union official threatened X with more lawsuits if he didn’t censor Trump. And U.S. journalists and the White House even suggested that Musk should face consequences for spreading “disinformation.” Glenn reads the EU’s statement, which is one of the most shocking things he has ever read from a modern Western power: “When has speech become ‘too risky?’ … It makes Saudi Arabia look [free].” Glenn also connects the dots: Why are so many western governments suddenly cracking down on free speech?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, if you were reading the news today, what would your impression of the Elon Musk/Donald Trump spaces be?

STU: Well, they had technical problems, Glenn. That was the main takeaway. They started late. And that was the most important thing I got out of the conversation. They did not start on time.

GLENN: Right. That's not actually what happened.

Elon Musk said that the spaces came under a massive coordinated DDOS denial of service attack.

With everything that is going on in the world, I tend to believe that. But there's not a single story in the mainstream media that is reporting that. They're just saying, he has a failed platform. And that, you know, this is -- this is exactly what happened with Ron DeSantis. Yada, yada.

And I believe when Ron DeSantis did it. It probably wasn't prime time. But you don't do that twice. You know what I mean? He said he was testing the servers. They could have handled 8 million people. That's as high as they tested, yesterday. But said everything was fine. And there ended up being about a million live, according to the reports. But I don't know what to believe anymore.

And I was shocked that they didn't spend more time on that, and more time on what -- what they were threatened with. What Elon Musk was threatened with, by the European Union yesterday.

I -- I don't know if you've seen this letter. To Elon Musk. But I just want to read some of it.

It's quite long. It's a full page. But it's worth hearing, in America.

Dear Mr. Musk, I'm writing you, in the context of recent events in the United Kingdom. And in relation to the planned broadcast on your platform X of a live conversation between a US presidential candidate and yourself, which will also be accessible to users in the EU. Okay.

Oh, well, there's a lot of things that happened on CNN that are available to European Union -- users. Why is Elon Musk being singled out. And Elon Musk invited Kamala Harris to do the same thing with her. She turned it down.

I understand that you're currently doing a stress test of the platform in this context.

I'm compelled to remind you of the due diligence obligations set out in the digital services act.

This is a -- just an absolute Draconian act on free speech in the European Union. The left has found a way to outsource freedom of speech.

The suppression of freedom of speech. Our government doesn't have to do it because the EU can now do it to us.

As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users world-wide. Which is one-third in the EU.

That has been designated as a very large online platform. You have the legal obligation to ensure X's compliance with EU laws. And in particular, the digital services act in the EU.

This notably, means ensuring on one hand, that freedom of expression. And information. Including media freedom. And pluralism are effectively protected.

And on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation members -- measures are put into place, regarding the amplification of harmful content, in connection with relevant events, including live-streaming, which if unaddressed might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civil discourse and public security.

This is important against the background of recent example of public unrest, brought about by the amplification of content, that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement of violence, or certain instances of disinformation.

Now, I want to remind you that the WEF, the world economic forum in Davos, what was their number one problem that they had to solve?

It was bigger than global warming. It was bigger than any other thing. I mean, it came out of nowhere. And it was their number one problem. That they needed to focus on.

Do you remember what it was, Stu?

STU: Hmm. No. Not off the top of my head.

GLENN: Mis, dis, and malinformation.

Uh-huh. They said, they had to stop this, because it was going to be a problem, this year.

Examine so they had to do everything they could to stop it.

And Klaus Schwab said, you've got to trust the system.

So you have to trust the system. What do you -- who are you speaking to?

He was speaking to the leadership of the West. He was speaking to all of the prime ministers. And the heads of security. And everything else.

Saying, we've got this under control, nobody abandon ship.

You stay on board. We have this.

This is a direct reflection of that. It also implies, informing EU judicial and administrative authorities without undue delay on the measures taken to address their orders, against content considered illegal, according to national and EU law, taking timely diligent, non-arbitrary, and objective action, upon receipt of notices by users considering certain content illegal and informing users, concerning the measures taken upon receipt of the relevant notice, and publicly reporting about content moderation measures. This is absolutely incredible.

I mean, this is V for vendetta, or 1984 stuff.

In the respect, I note that the DHS obligations apply without exceptions or discrimination to the moderation of the whole user community and content of X. Including yourself, as a user with 190 million followers.

Which is accessible to EU users. And should be fulfilled in line with the risk-based approach of the DSA. Which requires greater due diligence in case of a foreseeable increase in the risk profile.

So they're saying, that he -- he should not be running this interview. Because it's too risky.

Now, let me ask you something. America.

When has speech become too risky?

What was it, that Donald Trump said yesterday, that was so scary?

These people are trying to shut down your access to any other point of view.

You'll notice, they don't say anything, when Democrats say, elections are stolen. And Republicans will steal this one.

Now, Donald Trump alluded to election fraud. But he was talking about making sure that when he's in office, we will have paper ballots. We'll be able to count a record of everything we do.

Where is the equal footing here, on freedom of speech?

Mike Lee tweeted, back to the EU.

Go to hell.

That's like an F-word fun festival for Mike Lee to say that. This is absolutely unrecognizable to me in the West. It is making -- it is making Saudi Arabia, look like a kind of open place.

They finish, let me clarify: That any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU, which could be attributed to the ineffectiveness of the way in which X applies the relevant provisions of the DSA. May be relevant in the context of the ongoing proceedings. And the overall assessment of X compliance with EU law.

This is in line with what has already been done in the recent past. For example, in relation to the repercussions and amplification of terrorist content.

They're now speaking about terrorist content, or content that incites violence, hate, and racism in the EU, such as the context of the recent riots in the United Kingdom.

I urge you to promptly ensure the effectiveness of your systems, and report measures taken to my team. My services and I, will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA, and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting intrameasures, should it be warranted to protect the EU citizen from serious harm. This is absolutely incredible!

If you don't think they're serious. And if you don't think it affects us, let me play a Washington Post reporter, yesterday afternoon.

Cut one. Elon Musk is slated to interview Donald Trump tonight. On -- on X.

I don't know if the president is going to today. Feel free to say if he is or not.

But I think that misinformation, on Twitter, is not just a campaign issue. You know, it's an America issue.

What role does the White House, or the president have in sort of stopping that, or stopping the spread of that? Or sort of intervening in that.

Some of that was about campaign information.

But it's a wider thing.

GLENN: No. Yeah. You heard us talk about many times from here. The responsibilities that social media platforms have. When it comes to misinformation. Disinformation.

I don't have anything to read out from here, about specific ways that we're working on it.

But we believe that, that they have the responsibility. These are private companies. So we're also mindful of that too.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

They've outsourced it to the EU.

Remember, Elon Musk is -- is an incredible inventor. He has changed the car industry. He has changed it in numerous ways.

He has changed the way we look at going to space.

He's -- he's put a -- a rocket up in space, that returns to its platform, on the water!

He's one of the main guys from PayPal, when that started.

They loved him. They loved him. Until he bought the platform Twitter.

Well, now you're an enemy.

Because you won't play by our rules. Do you see how dystopian that is?

Do you have the cut of the judge in England?

Here's a judge sentencing a guy for something he posted on Facebook. Listen to this.

VOICE: To say that you did not want your money going to immigrants. Who, quote, rape our kids and get priority.

End quote. This offense is so serious.

That an immediate custodial sentence is unavoidable. Would you stand please? The sentence that I pass has been reduced by one-third to reflect your guilty plea. The sentence is one of 20 months imprisonment.

GLENN: Twenty months in prison, in the United Kingdom for posting, I don't want my money going to a bunch of immigrants who come here, rape our children, and then get off scot-free.

Well, I don't either. That doesn't mean all immigrants or all illegals are doing that. But there is evidence of both of those things happening. Especially in England. Of illegals, coming in, and raping children.

And the government not doing anything about it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

THIS is why self-reliance may be your ONLY protection from SLAVERY

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

SHOCKING: Glenn Beck Interviews 'Detransitioner' Deceived by Doctors

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.