RADIOJuly 28, 2022

Glenn DEBUNKS CNN article on 'White Christian Nationalists'

CNN is back at it, spreading more lies than you can count. In fact, its recent article titled “An 'imposter Christianity' is threatening American democracy” was so bad, it made Glenn’s eyes bleed. CNN supports the article’s premise — that American Christianity is being overrun by radical, White Christian nationalists — with far-left thinkers and biased New York Times’ bestsellers. So, Glenn debunks it all, conducting an EPIC TAKEDOWN of the article with facts from history that PROVE ‘everything CNN Is contending here is WRONG.’

You can access Glenn's supporting documents and research here.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Right now, I want to do part one of the article written by CNN. It has been trending all week. The article. An imposter Christianity is threatening American democracy. And I read it Sunday. And my eyes started to bleed. So I went to our Mercury Museum. And started doing some research. Asked Tim Barton. David Barton. And the research staff. To be able to -- can we compile some evidence that everything CNN is contending here is wrong? And, gee, after nine pages of footnotes, yeah. We can do that. We can do that. So I'm going to start today. Probably end it tomorrow in this hour. And I'll make it tomorrow, available in our newsletter. So subscribe, at GlennBeck.com for our free newsletter. So here we go. An imposter Christianity is threatening American democracy. The insurrection marked the first time. What is the insurrection? January 6th. The insurrection marked the first time many Americans realized, the U.S. is facing a burgeoning white Christian nationalist movement. This movement uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to black people, and non-white immigrants in its quest to create a white Christian America. Oh, my gosh. Now we really know what happened on January 6th. It was white Christians that were trying to get anybody -- but they were colored. Get them out of here. Because that's what Jesus says, according to CNN. The media is so busy looking for anyone and anything to blame for January 6th. And also, at the same time, serve two masters. Also, take down not just the country. Not just conservatives. But also Christianity. And if you have faith, now you are on trial. If you believe in God, free game. And the way they do it is by taking your faith, and assigning a false label to it. Your faith, as you will see in this article, is now white Christian nationalist. Do you know of a church that promotes sexism and hostility to black people and non-white immigrants. If you do, please call, because you're probably proud. I don't know of a church that is preaching that, even in the language of dog whistles. Now, if you might be thinking that CNN is referring to their random offshoot of Christianity. A minority, whose relevancy must be called out, because the article goes on to elaborate. White Christian nationals believe, have infiltrated the religious mainstream. Thoroughly, so thoroughly that virtually any conservative Christian pastor, who challenges their ideology, risks their career. Says Kristen Du Mez. Now, who is Kristen Du Mez? She's got a fancy name, she must be smart. Well, she's the author of the New York Times' best-seller Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.

She says, these ideas are so widespread, that any individual pastor or Christian leader who tries to turn the tide and say, let's look again at Jesus and Scripture, are going to be tossed aside. My gosh, I'm terrified now.

Okay. So first, CNN is clearly not talking about some random minority offshoot here. They're insinuating that every church in America, especially if you have a white pastor, is infected. Quote, virtually any conservative Christian pastor. And any individual pastor, or Christian leader. Well, I think that pretty much encapsulates almost all Christian churches. But funny enough, you're probably still grouped on to this label, even if you're not white. If you believe in Christian doctrine to these people, you're the enemy. You know what they're really talking about here, right? Homosexuality and abortion. The doctrine on these issues is clear, and no true Christian pastor will tell you that either is not a sin. They will love the sinner. They will say, that is your choice, but it is something that you need to deal with God with, because this is what God says. But I'm not going to hate you. Oh, my gosh! They want to overthrow the government with stuff like that. Doctrine cannot be changed due to the politics of the time. I'm sorry. But then again, not sorry at all. CNN brings out the big guns, they bring out the experts here to help them. And the one I just quoted is Christian Du Mez. What a -- she is a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University. Now, Calvin University, that's a Christian university. Calvin is. I don't know about Hobbs University, but Calvin is definitely a Christian, which gives her a basis as a Christian authority, to criticize other Christians, and to point out, they're all off-based. She's referenced six times in the article. It's an amazing high number. But she is a Du Mez, huh? And she has a view of Christianity. And whether she has a good authority on Christian beliefs, I don't know. But we should consider her viewpoint on the subject, such as her work on the faith of Hillary Clinton. Now, here's her description of her admiration for Hillary Clinton's faith. What she says -- she says she's a big fan of, and that should tell us, whether she's a qualified expert on Christian beliefs or not. Because listen to what she says. And I quote. Having spent a lot a lot of time, reading the sermons and the diaries of intrepid Methodist women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I couldn't help, but see Hillary Clinton as a torch bearer of this vibrant tradition of progressive faith and activism. Yet, it puzzles me, that so many people on the left and the right, saw her as secular. Or even a pagan. The more I begin to dig into her story, the more I begin to realize, to tell her story is to tell the story of Christianity itself, in recent American history.
(music)
And the heavens open. And the sunbeams down on the truth. By the way, CNN also fails to acknowledge, that Du Mez is currently openly contending against the university's Christian beliefs in important areas, such as sexuality. She is currently the leader in opposition to the Christian beliefs in her church, in that area. Not only debating the university's position, but also being photographed, in front of a pride flag. Now, just this one source alone, it's pretty clear, CNN -- we know what they have a problem with here. The Christian faith. What bothers them, gets them so hot, and, oh, my gosh. They're after us. Is the doctrine of the Bible. Which is on trial here. And anyone willing to pervert it, is an expert. A theologian or a historian. The article goes on to identify the key beliefs, three key beliefs associated with the a white Christian nationalist. Oh, well. I'm going to take a break. Because you need to have a sip of water. Because you're going to realize, pretty darn quickly, that you have been calling for the overthrow of this government, all because of black and Hispanic people, or people of another color, which I shan't express at this time.

Hmm. Oh, yeah. So we're going back now into the religion and theology! Raise your hands and praise the Lord for CNN. Gang, stop the music. They have caught us. They have caught us. CNN says that we're all worshiping an imposter Christianity. And they have somebody named Christiane Amanpour, that kind of has Christ in the name so I think we should pay attention. The article released on Sunday, identifies three key beliefs associated with the white Christian nationalists. And here they are. And ask yourself right now, do I belong to a hate group? Belief number one. A belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.
(laughter)
Gotcha! You're in a hate group. For this section, CNN rolls out their expert of experts on this topic. Yale professor, Philip Gorski. Is he a historian? Is he a theologian? No, he's neither. He's a sociology professor, which is code for, I'm a radical leftist, practicing in a -- in a -- a role here, that was designed by Karl Marx. Yeah. Yeah. Sociology. Karl Marx. Look it up. Anyway, he's just looking to indoctrinate as many young minds as he can. And so CNN says, let's find the best and the brightest for this little thesis. CNN refers to him 12 times in this article. He says, erasing the lines separating piety from politics is a key characteristic of white Christian nationalism. Wow. Aren't I told every day, that I am just somebody that is just a horrible, horrible person, unless I apply the politics of this new woke religion? Anyway, erasing the lines separating piety from politics is a key characteristic of white Christian nationalism. Many want to reduce or erase the separation of church and state say those who study the movement. Who are they? Who are those who are studying the movement? Why aren't you quoting them? What is separation of church and state? Well, according to our court and public policy decisions, it includes an individually -- an individual personally expressing his faith and beliefs in public. So they believe Christians are theocrats, for wanting to see individuals receive the Constitution's guaranteed protection for free speech and religious expression, that many courts have ignored recently. Now, consider some of the separation of church and state restrictions that CNN and this Yale professor, just think as nonsense. For instance, a student was prohibited from writing a research paper on a religious topic. Or drawing religious artwork in class. Or carry a personal Bible on to the school grounds. School forbade a Bible for being placed in its reference library. Wow. Try to understand Shakespeare without a Bible. Cadets at a state military academy were banned for praying over their meals. Individually. A state employee in Minnesota was barred from parking his car in the state parking lot because of a religious sticker on his bumper. Five-year-old kindergarten student in Saratoga Springs, New York, was forbidden to say a prayer over lunch and was scolded by the teacher for doing so. Senior citizens who regularly gathered at a community center in Balch Springs, Texas, prohibited for praying over their meals. A library employee, in Russellville, Kentucky, was barred for wearing her necklace because it had a small cross on it. College students serving residential assistance in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, prohibited from holding Bible studies in their own personal dorm rooms. A school lunch official in St. Louis, Missouri, caught an elementary student praying over his lunch, lifted the student from his seat. Reprimanded him from other students. Took him to the principal, who ordered him, stop praying! Now, there are hundreds of these examples. And that's what they claim is the separation of church and state. So what does the separation of church and state actually mean in a historic sense?

Well, the only founder that talked about the separation of church and state, was Thomas Jefferson. So we should ask him! Because the progressives credit him with the -- the origin of that phrase. And they love it so much. So it was Jefferson's firm position, that the federal government had no authority, to interfere, limit, regulate, or prohibit public religious expressions. You mean like praying over lunch? Yes. Exactly. And he stated that, on multiple occasions. Oh. I wish I had ten or 12 examples. Oh, I do. I do. Oh, it's going to take us more than two days to get through all of this. But by gum, we'll do it.

GLENN: All right. So we're debunking the CNN article that America has a real problem. Because Christianity, all the churches have been taken hostage. And now they're white nationalist churches. So they've gone on to identify the three key beliefs associated with the white Christian nationalist. The first one is I believe the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Okay. So we -- we told you about this. And then the separation of church and state. We showed you what was being passed. But I want to get real quickly, to what separation of church and state actually means, okay? We have to go to Thomas Jefferson. Because he's the only one that said this. It was Jefferson's firm position, that the federal government had no authority to interfere with, limit, regulate, or prohibit public religious expressions. A position he stated on many occasions like this. Quote, no power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, First Amendment. In the matter of religion, I have considered -- considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution, independent of the powers of the federal government. Quote, our excellent Constitution, has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Now, none of these statements or other statements by Jefferson, contain even the slightest hint that religion shall be isolated or removed from public square. Or that the public square should be secularized. Rather, that the government could not limit or regulate any religious expressions. So now, let's understand the concern here. Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state, to people of faith, who were saying, I don't trust this government. I don't trust -- we -- they will find a way to stop us. Jefferson replied to them, January 1st, 1802. Assuring them that they had nothing to fear. Quote, the government would not meddle with your religious expression. Whether it occurs in public or private. Quoting, a contemplate with sovereign reverence, that at of the whole American people, which declared in the First Amendment, that their legislature, should, quote, make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thus, building a wall of separation between church and state. So he was using that as a metaphor, saying, don't worry about it. They're not going to touch religion, because they're not able to touch religion. It is beyond their reach. The exact opposite of what the Yale professor, who is neither a theologian nor a historian is saying in this lovely CNN article. Let me move on. There's more. But you'll get it in our newsletter. Well, I have to take a breath. I really hate completely blowing up CNN's first key belief of white Christian nationalists, right at the beginning. But maybe they're just ignorant. Or they're being completely dishonest. You'll have to figure out, the article and ignorance goes on. One of the most popular beliefs, writes CNN, among white Christian nationalists, is that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers were all orthodox evangelical Christians. And that God has chosen the U.S. for a special role in history. But the notion that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation is bad history and bad theology, says Philip Gorski, the sociologist who is neither again a theologian or a historian. But he is the coauthor of The Flag and The Cross: White christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. So it makes him an authority on his opinion. He says it's a half-truth. A mythological version of American history. So saith the Yale sociology professor. Amen. Well, since I didn't get any real historians to comment for this article. Let me give you some very well documented footnotes and quotes, that are actually historically accurate. On literally hundreds of occasions, in the past two centuries, state and federal courts have routinely declared America as a Christian nation. For starters in a unanimous decision in 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed America as, quote, a Christian country. 1892, Supreme Court did it again. Delivered a unanimous ruling, declaring America is, quote, a Christian nation. In 1931, Supreme Court reaffirmed the same position for a third time. Stating we are, quote, a Christian people. Now, I know you have no respect for the Supreme Court, unless it agrees with you. But that's what the Supreme Court has said. But maybe we can go for some presidents. Because presidents have all made comments on this, including John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. John Quincy Adams. John Taylor. Zachary Taylor. James Buchanan. Abraham Lincoln. Ulysses S. Grant. William McKinley. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Dwight Eisenhower. Richard Nixon.

Hey, here's one from Lyndon Baines Johnson, that you'll like if you're a progressive. In these last 200 years, we have guided the building of our nation and our society by those principles and precepts brought to earth nearly 2,000 years ago. On that first Christmas. Oh. And then if I may quote, America was born as a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness, which are derived from the revelations of holy Scripture. Who said that? Oh, it gives me great joy to say Woodrow freaking Wilson. Your God on the left. But let's go back even further on our history.

1606, Virginia charter declared the colony was started for the propagation of Christian religion to such people as yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God and Jesus Christ. The Mayflower Compact of 1620, declared their endeavor was undertaken for the glory of God. And advancement of the Christian faith. 1629. Charter of Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared that winning the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only one true God and savior of mankind and the Christian faith is the principle end of this plantation or colony. 1639. Do I need to go on? I mean, I can do this all day long. Get it in the newsletter. Okay. Let me -- let me just give you one more. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. I believe no one can read history of our country without realizing the good book and the spirit of the savior. Have from the beginning, been our -- what are we looking at the first charter of Virginia? Or the charter of New England. The charter of Massachusetts Bay, the fundamental order of Connecticut. Same objective is present. A Christian land governed by Christian principles.

Congress has also said, 1852, 1853. When a group sought to complete secularization of the public square, House judiciary committee, half the people, during the Revolution had a suspicion of any attempt, to war against Christianity. That revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, and the universal sentiment, that it was Christianity that should be encouraged.

Not any one sect or denomination. In this age, there could be no substitute for Christianity. The judiciary committee, we are Christians, not because the law demands it. Not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education. And this, in a land, thus universally Christian. Which is what to be -- which is what is expected, what is desired, and what we shall pay due regard to Christianity. House of Representatives said the same thing.

Now, they made a counter with -- yeah. But you really don't need to go any further. I mean, none of -- virtually, I'm quoting. Virtually none of the Founding Fathers could be classified as evangelical Christians. Really? John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence: The holy ghost carries with it the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by through the Holy Ghost, and the authority religious, blah, blah, blah. Samuel Adams. I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. I conceive I can -- we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the supreme rule of the world. And promoting the speedy bringing up of the holy and happy period with the kingdoms of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Do I need to go on? Joshua Bartlett, signer of the Declaration of Independence. I confess before God our grave transgressions and implore his pardon and forgiveness through the merits and meditation of Jesus Christ. Cutting Bedford, signer of the Constitution. To the Tribune of God, the father, the son, and the holy ghost. Be ascribed all honor and dominion forevermore, amen. Charles Carol, signer of the declaration. On the mercy of my redeemer. I rely for salvation. On his merits. Not the works I have done. I hope that through and by merit sufferings and meditation of my only savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted to the kingdom, blah, blah. How about Alexander Hamilton. If I rap it, maybe you'll hear it. I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of Lord Jesus Christ. Hamilton also recommended the formation of what he titled the Christian constitutional society. And listed two goals for its foundation. First, the support of the Christian religion. And second, support of the Constitution. John Hancock, Hancock called on the state of Massachusetts to pray that all nations may bow down to the scepter of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. John Hart, signer of the declaration. I give and recommend my soul to the hands of the Almighty God, who gave me my body to be here on the earth, to be buried in a decent and Christian-like manner. Patrick Henry, being a Christian is a character which I prize far above all this world, has or can boast. Samuel Huntington, signer of the declaration. It becomes a people publicly to supplicate the pardon that we must obtain forgiveness through the merits and meditations of our Lord savior Jesus Christ. James Madison, you know, the guy who wrote the Constitution. And the signer of the Constitution. A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves, lest while we are building ideal monuments, of renowned and bliss here, we might neglect to have our name to be enrolled in the annals of heaven. Robert Payne, signer of the Declaration -- do I need to go on? Because I have like 12 more? You know what, get them in the nine pages of footnotes, that you can look up yourself. But the article goes on at CNN. For evidence the United States was founded as a secular nation, look no further than the 1797 treaty of Tripoli. As an agreement, the U.S. negotiated with a country in present day Libya, to end the practice of pirates attacking American ships. And it was ratified unanimously by a Senate, still half filled with the signers of the Constitution. That declared, the government of the United States of America, is not in any sense, founded on a Christian religion. Now, I want you to notice that little gotcha quote. Because it is a little quote. In fact, it has a period, where there is no period. Now, is this seriously the only thing CNN has that they can say -- separation of church and state. Which is absolutely the opposite of what they say it is. And then this one. I mean, I'm sure, you know, you've seen how people talk bang those days. The Gettysburg address was very short, compared to how they talked in George Washington Times. They went on and on and on. Okay. I got it. You don't have a television. So what's with the short sentence? Do you think maybe CNN could have pulled this out of context? No. We'll find out next.

Meta’s AI “Friends” Nightmare: How Zuckerberg’s Latest Move Could Enslave Your Mind

Meta and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a new goal: to give lonely Americans AI “friends.” But Glenn sounds the alarm: this must NEVER happen! Glenn explains the hidden danger in Zuckerberg’s seemingly kindhearted plan: “AI cannot, must not, and will never be your friend.” Opening that door will only give Meta insane levels of potential for manipulation and control over you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with this: Mark Zuckerberg. Good guy. I mean, he brought us Facebook.

And, you know, that is the thing that brought all of us together.

Brought out families together. All the people that we lost touch with.

Oh, the world is so much better now that we have Facebook.

So now, he's got another idea. Could we play the clip of Mark Zuckerberg?

VOICE: There's a stat that I honestly think is crazy. The average American has I think it's fewer than three friends. Three people they consider friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's 15 friends or something.

I guess there's probably at some point, I'm too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have. So, you know, there's a lot of questions that people ask.

Of stuff like, okay. Is this going to replace kind of in person connections or real life connections?

And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.

I think it -- it -- I think that there are all these things that are better kind of about physical connections, when you can have them.

But the reality is that people just don't have the connection when they feel more alone, a lot of the time, than they would like.

GLENN: Hmm. True.

Now, let me ask you. Is there a time when you don't remember feeling so isolated? When you didn't really feel like I don't have any real friends?

When you didn't -- you had real connections with people, instead of a million connections with people that are your friends, but not really your friends?

Can you think of a time, way back in history?

I mean, probably have to go back to the cavemen, to find a time.

Oh. Before Facebook, and social media!

When we weren't all killing ourself, because we have no meaning.

Now, from the people who brought you kill yourself, because you've been on Facebook too much.

Brings you new AI friends. Oh, this is going to be good.

By the way, you know, that's a crazy stat, I think the average American has, what? Three friends. And they have a capacity for, I don't know. Fifteen or 20. I don't know.

Really think about it right now.

How many true friends, do you have?

How many true friends?

People that when you are down and out, there is nothing -- the whole world is against you!

That that person will actually stand by your side. And go, yeah.

I'm their friend.

And I don't care what you say.

How many? How many do you have?

I think I would count myself lucky if I have three.

Now, I have a lot of consequences.

I have a lot of people who we all think are friends. But as a recovering alcoholic, I've been there.

I've done that. As a recovering alcoholic,
who then also is a conservative and spoke out about the Obama administration, I know who my friends are.
I know who my friends are not.

And I think there's a lot of people that have counterfeit friends.

If you've got. Oh, I've got ten or 15 friends.

Eh.

No, you don't. No, you don't.

I've always grown up thinking, you're lucky, you're lucky, to have three, five, really good friends.

That will walk through anything with you. Do you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never been there.

STU: For you? Oh, God no. But I'm just saying, generally speaking. No. I think -- I mean, you're describing a great friend. You're describing a really --

GLENN: A real friend.

STU: Yeah. Like someone you know and stick around for multiple decades.

GLENN: Yeah, I have lots of friends. You know what I mean? I have millions of Facebook friends.

STU: Right. Those aren't real.

GLENN: Right. And I have lots of friends. But the ones that are there for you always, no matter what, I have family.

And I have family.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I have a handful of friends. I would consider you one of those.

STU: Thank you. I would as well.

GLENN: Why?

Remember, I have a drinking problem.

STU: Yeah. A lot of brain cells killed to make that decision.

But I think that you -- yes. I think the only thing that I think I'm drilling down a little bit on to try to understand. When you say, well, I have a lot of friends.

In a way, I think that's what Zuckerberg is talking about.

It's not even necessarily a great friend that you have for multiple decades. And can count on at any time.

Just the mid-level consequences, are drying up for a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah. And why is that?

Why is that?

Because we don't talk to each other anymore.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of social media.

You know, when this generation says, I don't know.

I just think it's weird. I'm just now in a bar someplace.

And some stranger comes up to me and wants to strike up a conversation. I'm like, hello, weirdo. I don't know!

You think it's less weird to go online?
When people can fake everything!

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.

But no thanks. Okay.

STU: And they're just -- to build up on this point for one second.

There's a study that came out, the last 20 years, of how much time do you spend socializing with the people.

Again, that's not with your best friends.

This is just socializing with anyone, a human.

Every single group. Every single group has massive drops.

GLENN: Massive.

STU: Massive drops. Just give you some examples.

Ages. Fifteen to 24-year-olds. Thirty-five-point down.

In 20 years. 35 percent. So a typical 15-year-old, as compared to what they are, in 2003 and 2025, where were the two measurement years?

They're spending 35 percent less time, with other human beings.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. Can you please stop distracting me? Because I'm trying to figure out why our kids are killing themselves.

STU: No, it's really hard.

GLENN: It's very hard to figure out.

STU: To understand.

And this is the coup de grâce of this entire study, which is, the typical female pet owner spends more time actively engaged with her pet, than she spends face-to-face contact with her friends of her own species.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That is unbelievable -- not like you're in the same house as your cat.

Right? No. More face-to-face time with your cat!

GLENN: And I've got news for you. If you think your cat is your friend, wait until you die, and your cat is trapped in the house with you and you have no friends to check. They will eat your face.

STU: They will still have a use for you.

GLENN: Yeah. They will have a use foy.

STU: Not the other way around.

GLENN: Okay. Here's why I'm bringing this up today.

This is a lie, that is going to be sold to you, like crazy. And it's going to be wrapped in a beautiful, shiny package. And it's going to have from Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, on the tag.

They want you to believe, that AI and bots can be your friends.

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:

THIS is Why We Don’t Trust the Mainstream Media

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.