00:03:17.700And, of course, instead of looking in the mirror and saying, well, maybe we should change the way that we handle things.
00:03:23.480Maybe people don't want to be controlled by a global elite at Davos, you know, full of millionaires and billionaires and giant corporations.
00:03:32.900Instead of doing that, they decided, no, the problem is there's all these, you know, dissenters out there in the world spreading misinformation and disinformation about all of our pet causes.
00:03:43.320And if we could just control that problem and shut people up, then maybe we could actually get some stuff done.
00:03:51.440And this came out in a lot of different ways throughout the conference.
00:03:53.760But that, to me, was the biggest takeaway for this year.
00:03:59.800How are they defining misinformation and disinformation?
00:04:03.680Yeah, well, basically, it's a deliberate attempt to spread information that is knowingly false.
00:04:14.640OK, so the people saying it are deliberately saying things they know are not true.
00:04:20.000And so they're lying about these big sort of elaborate policies, plans, global risks, et cetera.
00:04:27.220That's how they would define it in a broad sense.
00:04:30.400But the reality is it's just whatever they don't, whatever, whatever people like you and I who support individual freedom, whatever we think that they're doing wrong, that is misinformation and disinformation.
00:04:41.640Anytime we say that they're, you know, trying to control people's lives, for example, or that, you know, COVID lockdowns are warranted or climate change is not an existential crisis to humanity.
00:04:56.460Anybody who says things like that, those would be examples of misinformation and disinformation.
00:05:01.040So if you disagree with them, that's misinformation and disinformation.
00:05:05.620And that's always, I've yet to see a situation where they haven't labeled, you know, where they've taken something that someone like me has said and said, you know what, yeah, we don't agree with that.
00:05:17.960But that isn't misinformation or disinformation.
00:05:23.600So it really is just any sort of disagreement that you have with the establishment elites.
00:05:30.260OK, so this is what this is how they described it.
00:05:34.460And it uses the euphemisms that you were saying that they used.
00:05:38.320The 54th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum will provide a crucial space to focus on the fundamental principles of driving trust, including transparency, consistency and accountability.
00:05:50.860But what it sounds like you're saying is that they actually mean the opposite of those things.
00:05:55.520The people in charge, at least the people that Davos or the World Economic Forum agrees with, they're not being held accountable.
00:06:04.240They don't have to be consistent in their principles.
00:06:07.000They don't have to be transparent in why they're doing what they're doing.
00:06:10.300I'm thinking of really most prominently, I'm thinking of someone like Justin Trudeau and what's going on in Canada right now, what has been over the past few years, the season of the bank accounts, the trampling on people's free speech rights and fundamental rights.
00:06:24.560There's been no accountability, no consistency, no transparency for him.
00:06:28.380That's what we see with all of these leaders.
00:06:30.140I mean, there is no greater example, I think, of war is peace, freedom is slavery, as we see in 1984, than we see right here, than we see in their motto.
00:06:41.820And this has just been true year after year, right?
00:06:45.120Saying things and actually meaning the opposite of what they say.
00:06:50.360Well, I mean, think about the irony of this.
00:06:52.900You have them hosting a conference full of elites that regular people can't go to, saying that this is about transparency, when they have all sorts of closed-door panels and closed-door meetings between high-level officials that we don't have access to.
00:07:11.720That's how they've always presented it.
00:07:13.440They love to talk about how the stakeholders, which is just everybody, you and I, we're stakeholders.
00:07:17.960You know, we get input in all of this, but we're not invited to Davos.
00:07:22.540It's not like you and I get to go sit on the panels and give our two cents about their plans.
00:07:26.760So, yeah, it's just what they tell people, because they don't want to be honest.
00:07:31.560The honest, the way they really feel about the world is that most people are stupid sheep, and that they need to lead the stupid sheep to the right pastures.
00:07:44.340And the misinformation-disinformation problem is some of the stupid sheep in the fold, they're not falling in line, and they're convincing other sheep to go the wrong direction, too.
00:08:03.240So, misinformation and disinformation, what they mean by that, as you said, is opinions, perspectives, facts that don't align with their narratives,
00:08:11.420whether it's on climate change, whether it's on gender ideology, whether it's on economics, whatever it is.
00:08:18.860If there are subversive or oppositional voices to their approved-of narratives, that's what they qualify.
00:08:29.280That's what they count as misinformation or disinformation.
00:08:33.100And in the name of democracy and the name of freedom and the name of progress, it's very important to silence the voices that would oppose these agreed-upon narratives.
00:08:44.140So, it's for your own good that you can no longer have what they would call this privilege of free speech.
00:08:51.140Now, what's interesting about this is that there were some people invited to Davos this year that don't agree with that, that do align with a lot of our values, that do push for free speech.
00:09:04.760One of them was Javier Malay from Argentina.
00:09:09.140He is their new populist free market conservative president.
00:09:12.680And here he is telling the people at Davos to deny the state.
00:09:21.820Do not surrender to the advance of the state.
00:09:40.900So, he said he took the opportunity to tell Klaus Schwab and the rest of them to their faces, you guys are the problem, not the solution.
00:09:50.540And he also says, I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger.
00:09:54.160It is endangered because those who are supposed to defend the values of the West are co-opted by a vision of the world that inexorably leads to socialism and thereby to poverty.
00:10:03.940The main leaders of the Western world, he said, have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.
00:10:09.840We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world.
00:10:18.300I can't even imagine what kind of conniption George Soros was having if he heard those words or Klaus Schwab or any of those people.
00:10:26.820I know that you've argued that these people aren't communists, but they do push a form of collectivism under their oligarchy, under their authority.
00:10:37.200And so I can't imagine why Javier was even invited to speak because they knew as kind of a libertarian that he was probably going to say something like that.
00:10:48.180Yeah, it's actually a really genius move when you think about it.
00:10:52.860So if the theme is building trust, we have to rebuild trust.
00:10:56.700We got to get we got to get people who think that we're this terrible organization that's trying to manipulate and control things, which I really believe they are.
00:11:05.620It's really a collection of organizations and people and corporations and stuff trying to do that.
00:11:10.860But I really do think that's what they're doing.
00:11:12.740If we want to rebuild trust, then maybe what we should do is invite just a couple of our critics, let them get up on stage, say bad things about us, which they inevitably knew was going to happen.
00:11:23.360There was no way that they thought that somebody like Javier Malay or Kevin Roberts from the Heritage Foundation, who also was on a panel.
00:11:31.100There's no way that they thought those people are going to get there and say glowing things about the World Economic Forum.
00:11:34.980I mean, there's just no way they thought that.
00:11:38.340There are two people out of literally hundreds and hundreds of speakers, and you let them get the headlines that they're going to get in their circles back in America and Argentina and wherever else.
00:11:49.580And that's fine, because 99 percent of the rest of the agenda is giving a completely different picture of things.
00:11:56.640And there was another speech, which I think is which has gotten no attention.
00:12:00.620And again, this is sort of the genius of it, right?
00:12:02.340There was another speech given by the head of the United Nations, which nobody has paid any attention to at all.
00:12:09.260In the introduction to the speech, there was the president of the World Economic Forum, a guy named Borge Brende, got up there and introduced him by saying, in part,
00:12:19.860we're really excited about this big annual United Nations meeting of the heads of state that's coming up in September.
00:12:29.360Now, he's talking about this really radical global government plan, a plan for a global government that has been put forward by the head of the United Nations,
00:12:40.660who's one of the most radical people you'll ever find in the entire world.
00:12:44.260It's part of an our this our common agenda plan that the U.N. is pushing behind the scenes.
00:12:51.380There's going to be a meeting in September.
00:12:53.500The heads of state are going to go to it, similar to like the Paris Climate Accord agreements and things like that.
00:12:58.480And out of that, they've already decided there's going to be an agreement called Pact for the Future.
00:13:03.200They already have a name for it and everything.
00:13:04.480The details of what's going to be in it are being finalized right now.
00:13:08.920They have policy papers on the U.N. website.
00:13:11.780They've got all kinds of things talking about, I mean, hundreds and hundreds of pages of details of authoritarian plans that they have from the United Nations.
00:13:22.600The head of the World Economic Forum gets up and says, this guy, we're really excited about what he's doing at the end of the year with all of the heads of state that are in this room.
00:13:30.120That's going to be fun. Then he gets up on the stage and says all these basically the same kinds of things that, you know, we need to make sure we have enough power at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions to push our agenda and accomplish these goals.
00:13:47.780And do any does any of that get headlines?
00:13:49.880No. What gets headlines is Javier Malay standing up there saying you guys are all garbage, basically.
00:13:56.100And this is terrible. And Kevin Roberts saying some critical things about them, when in reality, 99 percent of the people in the room aren't going to they don't they don't care what Kevin Roberts says.
00:14:07.140And they don't care what Javier Malay says. They care what the head of the United Nations says.
00:14:11.180And that's the whole point of these meetings.
00:14:13.100So you've brought up Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, which I'm very thankful for his leadership.
00:14:31.100He's done a great job. So he was there and I'm thankful that he was there at least to just represent the concerns of people like you and me.
00:14:39.800And here's what he here's what he said or part of what he said.
00:14:43.620To regain trust, Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits and natural rights of nations, families and individuals to govern themselves.
00:14:52.340The World Economic Forum needs to hear that message.
00:14:55.840He talks about the dangers of Marxism and the dangers of collectivist governments around the world.
00:15:01.260He says they use their power to disempower us and their cultural influence to smear anyone who questions their self-serving corruption.
00:15:10.740Unchecked, centralized power leads to tyranny and the disasters compound the farther the power drifts or is untethered from the people.
00:15:18.660To regain trust, then Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits.
00:15:22.880And OK, I already said that the natural rights of individual nations to govern themselves.
00:15:28.460What we need is nothing more than the freedom to govern ourselves.
00:15:32.600And so he wrote that and he also said a lot of that when he was speaking on a panel at Davos.
00:15:39.160And now the Wall Street Journal, they have a headline titled this.
00:15:43.500And maybe you think this is just misdirected attention.
00:15:45.880But they said Davos turns gently right.
00:15:49.980And then they talk about some of the people that we just noted.
00:15:53.960And they argue that maybe they're trying to preempt some backlash, kind of what you argued.
00:16:00.640That, of course, they don't really want people like Javier Malay or like Kevin Roberts to actually have any power, make any change or push back against them.
00:16:10.900But maybe they can stave off a revolution against the WEF and the UN and those elites by just giving them a little bit, just giving them a little air.
00:16:21.920And by just saying, well, look, no, we're fair.
00:16:28.000We want people to be able to come here and share their opinion and appease people enough to keep them quiet while they still accomplish their agenda.
00:17:31.120They're all going with the same game plan.
00:17:33.380And so, yeah, it doesn't cause you any harm to have one dissenter on the main stage and one dissenter on some panel surrounded by other people who don't agree with him.
00:17:42.920That's fine. As long as at the end of the day, you get what you want.
00:17:47.280And that that's really so I think, again, building trust.
00:18:10.820Right. Yeah, I think so, too, especially if you have the Wall Street Journal saying, oh, they're turning right.
00:18:15.800They're steering to the right because they are making it seem like, oh, wow, this is the very first time that the WEF has ever platformed someone from the conservative side.
00:18:23.900And as you just pointed out, that's not true.
00:18:26.340That's an appeasement strategy so they can have cover to continue doing what they want to do.
00:18:31.380And as you've already mentioned, what they want to do is rein in what they call misinformation and disinformation, a.k.a. any disagreement with the regime.
00:18:39.720So tell me about some of the strategies that they suggested to rein in this so-called disinformation.
00:18:45.540Yeah. So the biggest thing is and you've got to remember the World Economic Forum, the whole overarching concept of it, and it's been this way for many decades, is public private partnerships.
00:18:57.000Like, this is the idea. It's government and private corporations working hand in hand to accomplish some sort of greater purpose.
00:19:04.180And in this case, if you're trying to tackle misinformation and disinformation and you want to have a public-private partnership version of that, most of that is focused on getting private corporations, most of the major private corporations in the United States, or I shouldn't say most.
00:19:21.740So there's many massive corporations in the United States, including Microsoft and a lot of the big tech companies that are official partners of the World Economic Forum, okay?
00:19:32.720So they work hand in hand all the time.
00:19:34.720They have all kinds of special projects with each other, especially on technology and social media and the internet and all of that.
00:19:42.400And the idea is we've got to get all of these people in the private sector moving in the same direction as government officials on free speech.
00:19:53.320Because, as you know, in America, private corporations have the ability to silence free speech in most cases, but government entities don't because we have First Amendment rights.
00:20:05.820In other countries, there are similar rules, although they don't have as strong protections for free speech in Europe, generally speaking, as we do here in America, but they still have some protections usually.
00:20:16.480And so if they're going to control speech, they have to get the private sector doing the dirty work for them.
00:20:23.440This is the whole concept of the Great Reset.
00:20:28.560You can't do it all through government because there's all these constitutional protections and other things that get in the way of it.
00:20:35.020But if we can just get the private sector to do everything that the government wants to do, all the authoritarian things that it wants, if we can just get them doing those things for us, then we don't have to worry about all those special protections for individual rights.
00:20:49.320So that idea was the idea that was floated over and over and over again.
00:20:53.960But there were also hints and just hints of it.
00:20:57.700But I alluded earlier to this speech that was given by the head of the United Nations talking about this upcoming conference that's coming up at the end of September, this Our Common Agenda.
00:21:11.400At Our Common Agenda, there is a component of that Pact for the Future that's proposed right now, and it could be scrapped from it by the time they actually sign the agreement.
00:21:23.160But one of the components is a global, what amounts to a global disinformation board and global standards for all Internet companies all over the world about what you can say and what you can't say on these platforms.
00:21:36.180And so that's actual, that's government, that would be government silencing speech on an international level.
00:21:44.280And so there were hints that that was alluded to in this conference as well.
00:21:51.280And that's really more, that's more hard authoritarianism, not just this public-private partnership stuff.
00:21:56.440But I think that if the World Economic Forum had it its way, you wouldn't need to have that.
00:22:02.260You could just have the private sector doing what they consider to be the right thing.
00:22:06.520Just silence all the people who are not going along with the standard talking points, and that's good enough.
00:22:14.280But in the event that that doesn't work out, they have a backup plan.
00:22:17.700The backup plan is let's have some international agreement that creates international law that forces these companies to do what we want them to do.
00:22:25.840And I think that that's kind of always lingering in the background of all these conferences.
00:23:00.640These stakeholders are the victims of this disinformation, and these guardians of our galaxy are just trying to help us.
00:23:08.580So the best way to prevent us from being exposed to this disinformation is to develop lists or guides for advertisers that tell them where to and where not to spend.
00:23:23.380Like there are already companies that do this.
00:23:25.600There are left-wing companies that try to target advertisers of shows like this one or conservative advertisers and try to scare them into, you know, pulling their advertising dollars away from a show that's happened to Glenn Beck.
00:23:39.940It's happened to a lot of conservative commentators.
00:23:42.900But he's talking about an international collective effort to ensure that shows like mine, conservative shows, don't have any advertisers and therefore just can't afford to be produced.
00:23:55.580That is a strategy that it looks like they are going to employ or want to employ just to make sure that there are no dissenting voices.
00:24:07.340And this is this is what The Great Reset is all about.
00:24:10.440It's about using money through the private sector, financial institutions, banks, insurance companies, things like that, to starve all of the people who are the enemies of the elites of capital, right?
00:24:25.300So if you can't get access to capital, you can't get access to banking services, you can't get access to insurance, then you can't function.
00:24:32.620We can actually just destroy everyone.
00:24:34.720We don't even necessarily need to pass a law to stop someone from speaking.
00:24:39.100We can just make it impossible for them to have a business.
00:24:42.300And if we can just destroy them that way, then it solves it serves that same purpose that we had in the past.
00:24:49.180Governments used to have to throw people in gulags.
00:24:51.220Now you can just make it impossible for them to speak on the Internet and you can take away all of their funding and you can make sure that there's no bank accounts for their advertisers.
00:25:02.220And all of a sudden it's like, well, they're going to be gone anyway.
00:25:06.240We're going to move them out of the way.
00:25:07.880And there's a lot of talk at Davos this past year and in previous years, there was even more talk about sustainable finance and getting financial institutions moving toward a more sustainable, robust future.
00:25:25.520One where they have a responsibility to ensure that society has more trust in institutions.
00:25:32.760They use this kind of language and really what it means is exactly what you were just alluding to.
00:25:37.300We have to make sure that the money dries up for the people that we don't agree with.
00:25:43.760If the money dry and the best way to do that is through the financial institutions.
00:25:46.940If they can if they can take the money and access to banking services and insurance away from advertisers and other businesses that are working against them, then they can't function.
00:25:59.860Everyone's going to have to do what we want them to do.
00:26:04.240And again, this kind of what I was saying before about this plan for in the future, this our common agenda.
00:26:09.680There's this global misinformation board idea that they're they're dreaming up at the United Nations in a very similar way to that on the topic we're discussing.
00:26:19.060Now, there's this plan for a mandatory European social credit scoring system.
00:26:25.760They call it due diligence in the European Union.
00:26:31.560It's been approved by a bunch of different legislative bodies in the European Union.
00:26:35.700They're just hammering out the final details of it.
00:26:38.360It literally could be passed within the next three or four months and made law.
00:26:43.640And the whole point of this thing is to impose social credit scores on not just corporations in the European Union, but any corporation that does business above a certain threshold in the European Union.
00:26:58.100And not only them, but so that would be American companies, for example, but every one of the companies that does business with those companies, everybody in their supply chain, many of the companies in their value chain, those companies that are that are forced to report under this this mandatory ESG guideline.
00:27:17.060They are responsible for making sure that all of the companies they do business with are also adhering to these rules that are being created in the European Union.
00:27:35.960So they would have to submit Ford would to the mandatory ESG social credit scoring system that the European Union is proposing.
00:27:43.580And just an example, because some people don't even know what a social credit score is or what ESG, of course, if they've listened to our previous episodes, they have an idea.
00:27:52.740But give me an example of what Ford may have to do if they had to comply with a law like this.
00:27:58.920So so a social credit score is just a non-financial it's non-financial measurements of a company.
00:28:05.800It's an evaluation of a company that's not based on financial criteria.
00:28:09.360So instead of looking at a traditional business metric, like how many cars do you sell or how what's status customer satisfaction or a number of employees or something, you look at what amounts to social justice criteria.
00:28:23.460So what is the gender ratio of your middle management, for example, is one such metric that exists.
00:28:52.580OK, how quickly are you going to phase out gas powered cars?
00:28:56.280When are you going to have all electric cars?
00:28:58.480And you some people might think, well, Ford's just not going to do that because, of course, they want to sell cars in the United States.
00:29:04.580Most people in the United States still want to use gasoline.
00:29:08.340But the point of a law like this in Europe is to say, well, you have to if you want to exist as a company, you have to.
00:29:17.760And in that way, they force the people in America or wherever who want to use gas powered cars to then use electric cars, because then we won't have a choice.
00:29:28.320If there are no car manufacturers that are willing to make these gas powered cars because of their need to comply with laws like this one in Europe, then we will all be forced to use gas powered cars, which is, of course, the goal of the people who run the European Union, who run the U.N.,
00:29:47.540who run the W.E.F. And so that's how it that's how it works.
00:29:52.380And they can what they can do. And going back to the speech thing, they can say in America, well, this doesn't really infringe upon free speech.
00:30:01.980It doesn't really infringe upon the First Amendment because it's not the government directly.
00:30:06.440If it was the American government making a law saying, well, you can't say this or you can't say that.
00:30:12.080But it is making a law, even if it's not in America, in Europe, it all comes together.
00:30:18.440It's somewhere a law requiring companies to comply with the regulation that is then going to affect the freedom, the flexibility that the people have, whether it's in Europe or whether it's in America.
00:30:31.560So it's their way to get around the Constitution.
00:30:34.580It's their way of getting around supply and demand. Right.
00:30:37.480That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And so you'll have these you're part of the proposed social credit scores that they're talking about in this EU plan,
00:30:48.480which, again, is on the verge of passing, is related to this sort of thing, misinformation, disinformation, fighting climate change, all of that kind of stuff.
00:30:56.520And so that is the plan. The plan is to impose these rules in the European Union where Americans have no constitutional rights and then companies,
00:31:06.480if you want to do business in the European Union or you just want to do business with someone who does business in the European Union and all of these major corporations do,
00:31:15.280then you have to be fighting climate change. You have to be fighting against misinformation and disinformation as they define it in their rules.
00:31:21.900You have to have gender quotas. You have to have racial quotas. You have to have all of the things you have to bow down to, you know, the LGBTQIA2S plus agenda, like all of that stuff.
00:31:33.400You have to make you have if the European Union is saying you have to do it and you do business anywhere in that supply chain and thousands and thousands of companies do,
00:31:42.180then you're going to get caught up in that. And that's the way that you change in their minds.
00:31:47.240That's the way that you change culture, not just in Europe, but that's how you change culture everywhere in the world.
00:31:54.380Because if every corporation is sending the same message through their products and their services and their advertising and their hiring policies,
00:32:02.420because they have really no choice but to do it, then downstream of those choices, this is what elites are hoping,
00:32:09.840the rest of culture changes, too, because that's the message that they're getting from everywhere, everywhere they look.
00:32:16.560That's the message that they're going to get. And the left in America already has control of most of the academic institutions.
00:32:21.680They already have control of Hollywood. They already have control of the music industry.
00:32:24.800They already have control of almost everything anyway. So this is just sort of the final nail in the coffin that ensures that this thing happens.
00:32:32.440Yeah. And the Constitution, which was sort of the last thing standing in the way of that and states' rights, all goes by the wayside.
00:32:40.720Unless every major corporation in America decides, you know what, we don't care.
00:32:45.340We're not doing business in Europe ever again. And we're not doing business with anybody who's in Europe ever again.
00:32:49.440And we know that will never happen because there's too much money to be made there.
00:32:52.840And most big corporations agree with this stuff anyway.
00:32:55.600Yeah, that's exactly right. And even if they don't personally agree with it, as you said, there's a lot of money to be made.
00:33:03.540And so they're not going to forego that money for the sake of American values that they certainly don't care about enough to, you know, to fight for them in that way.
00:33:14.380And this is why I was thinking through this. This is why the parallel economy is important, even if the financial institutions will one day come for all of our individual bank accounts, as we've already seen in places like Canada.
00:33:31.660At least for now, we are buying ourselves some time that maybe we can come up with some solutions to this.
00:33:39.020And what I mean by that is, OK, my advertisers, and this has increased over the past few years, probably all conservative podcasters have seen this, too.
00:33:49.600They have gone from like just being neutral companies that are OK advertising on a conservative podcast to family owned companies that I know 100 percent are we're on the same team.
00:34:03.860And so a company that is trying to target advertisers on conservative shows could, you know, they could come after or they could try to say, hey, Carly G Los Angeles or hey, good ranchers, can you believe that you are advertising on that transphobes show?
00:34:20.180And they would just be like, yeah, girls are girls and boys are boys. You know, that's just that would that wouldn't sway them.
00:34:27.780They wouldn't leave my show because of those things. So the parallel economy when it comes to that is so important.
00:34:33.280That's why it's so important for us to support those conservative and Christian companies, companies that support our values.
00:34:39.320That's why companies like Public Square are important and all of that.
00:34:42.400But of course, there is still the threat of all of the companies that those companies work with in Europe having to comply to these laws and then making it very difficult for them to make the money that they need to make to be able to buy advertising slots on a show like this or Glenn Beck's show or whatever it is.
00:35:02.700So there's still difficulty there. And then, of course, if the banks here have to comply with the law like that or if they are put under pressure to stop doing business with conservative businesses and funding the advertisers that fund conservative shows, that ends up being a problem, too.
00:35:20.400So but it's still important. It's still important for us to build this parallel economy.
00:35:23.980It's important for places like The Blaze to have subscriber led content that's not dependent on advertisers.
00:35:31.040That's another thing that's another thing that we can do. But we are going to have to create banking solutions.
00:35:35.840We're going to have to create financial solutions that are not beholden to somehow the pressures of the WEF and the UN and the European Union and ESG and DEI and all of these things.
00:35:50.800That's going to be that's going to be that's going to be what we have to do over the next few years as we're trying to build our parallel economy and protect ourselves from being completely shut down by the thought police.
00:36:04.100Yeah, 100 percent. And that's why states are so important.
00:36:08.900You know, America has a unique advantage over most other countries in the world, but especially in Europe, because we have a system where we have a federalist system where you have all of these states that have a significant amount of authority.
00:36:23.780You can have banks formulated under state law that don't exist under federal law like that's possible to do something like that.
00:36:32.080You can charter just under just under a state government. So you can build parallel economies in the United States, even if the federal government isn't willing to go along with it because you have states with significant powers to do that.
00:36:46.320You can't do it on every single issue like states can't make their own currency, for example, or things like that.
00:36:51.140But there is a lot of flexibility in America. And that's why paying attention to what happens at the state level and knowing who your state representatives are, for example, and state senators and knowing what's going on with your governor.
00:37:04.340Like, that's really, really important. And most people, I think, are so focused on what happens at the federal level.
00:37:11.480And and I understand why. I'm not saying that doesn't matter, but they're so focused on it that they just ignore everything that happens locally.
00:37:18.080When in reality, that's the only hope that we have anyway. The federal government's never going to do the right thing.
00:37:24.900They might even if we could get them to do the right thing for a year or two, someone else will come in after that and ruin it all.
00:37:31.160So we have to focus on what's going on in our local communities first, take advantage of that federal system, and then we can actually solve some of these problems.
00:37:39.860Okay, so this wasn't on the docket for us to talk about, but because you're talking about states' rights, I want to talk about what Greg Abbott is doing in Texas and what's happening at the border.
00:38:00.340I'm sure that you are prepared to talk about that, at least in relation to states' rights and the conversation that we're having.
00:38:08.420So as we talked about earlier this week on the show, the Supreme Court said, at least temporarily while litigation is going on,
00:38:16.140that the federal government can continue to remove the razor wire that Texas has put at the border to deter illegal migration.
00:38:24.400And, of course, I believe that Texas has the right to do that, the responsibility to do that, and I believe that the federal government should be executing its responsibility to protect our sovereign nation, to protect the sovereignty and the protection of our citizens.
00:38:39.580That should be its number one job. But, of course, it's failing to do that. It has removed the razor wire. It has removed the buoys. It's removed any deterrence whatsoever that Texas has tried to install and implement to protect its borders.
00:38:56.320So the Supreme Court said, yeah, this is a federal government problem. At least right now, they can remove this razor wire.
00:39:02.960Well, Greg Abbott has come out with a statement that I think is pretty stunning for people.
00:39:07.300So basically, I won't read the whole thing. It's long. But basically saying, look, the federal government, President Biden, has abandoned its responsibility.
00:39:17.700And so I am declaring an invasion. This is an invasion. And this triggers a state's right to self-defense.
00:39:26.020Basically, I'm going to defy you, President Biden and Mayorkas, and we are going to protect our border.
00:39:34.520Here, come and stop us, basically. That's what he's saying. Come and stop us. Let's see what happens.
00:39:40.480I am I don't know what's going to happen. I mean, is President Biden really going to take troops down there armed to stop, you know, Texas from defending its border?
00:39:53.240Like, what does that look like? Is this a civil war? What happens?
00:39:57.300I mean, I think it's great what Greg Abbott has done. As you said, we've got to protect states' rights. Absolutely.
00:40:02.780And that's what he's doing as the governor of Texas. But tell me what you think about this. Tell me what you think happens here.
00:40:09.600Yeah, this is I mean, predicting what's going to happen is is impossible.
00:40:13.580I think I think it's entirely it's entirely conceivable that Joe Biden, because Joe Biden's administration, I mean, I don't know how much Joe Biden is actually doing anything in this administration.
00:40:24.040But the people who are running the show in the White House have proven themselves to be quite authoritarian and not interested at all in enforcing immigration laws.
00:40:35.900And I think that it isn't it is possible that they will send troops down to the border and, you know, force the government or attempt to force the government of tech.
00:40:47.140And that's a very dangerous situation once you start getting into that sort of thing.
00:40:50.720However, I think that there is the Texas has no choice, no choice but to do this whatsoever.
00:40:57.260There's there's no choice. It's so ironic that the argument the federal government is making is, look, Texas, you have to listen to what we say,
00:41:05.020because we have laws on the books that say immigration laws on the books that say we get to do X, Y and Z.
00:41:10.840And if you're interfering with that, that's that's illegal when there are at the same time laws on the books that the federal government related to immigration is deliberately ignoring.
00:41:24.220So they're not enforcing law, one set of laws that they're supposed to be doing.
00:41:28.740That's the oath of office that you take as president of the United States is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America.
00:41:36.280He's obviously not doing that on purpose, not because he can't, but because he doesn't want to.
00:41:42.300And they're allowing millions and millions of people to come into the United States illegally without enforcing it.
00:41:48.360And then when Texas, which I think you could make the argument because they have police powers and things like that,
00:41:54.280have have a responsibility on on that side of things as well to just protect the citizens of Texas.
00:41:59.760And that part of doing that requires that they take some of the steps that they are taking.
00:42:04.920If the federal government isn't going to enforce its laws, I don't know.
00:42:09.700I don't know how you could expect Texas to do anything other than that.
00:42:15.800Texas would never have joined the United States of America ever, and neither would have most of the other states if they thought that meant that if the federal government decides that some group of people can just move in and just take your land and there's nothing you can do about it.
00:42:34.360If they thought that's what they were signing up for, there is no way this country would have ever been formed in the first place.
00:42:40.580Everybody understood at the time that the Constitution was written and all the states that joined after that, that it's a two-way street.
00:42:49.160There's federal responsibilities, and they have an obligation to do certain things for the states, including protect them.
00:42:57.020And the states have their responsibilities, and they have things that they have to submit to the federal government, like they can't make their own currency, for example.
00:43:04.700And there's other things related to trade and stuff that they don't have authority over.
00:43:08.520And immigration rules, generally speaking, is one of those things.
00:43:12.480But if the federal government is saying, well, we're just going to take all these laws about invasion or these laws about immigration, we're just going to ignore all of them, and we're just going to allow this to happen to you, and oh, you can't do anything about it?
00:43:26.540Then, of course, the state of Texas has the right to step in and say, no, no, no, no, no.
00:43:32.760We have rights to, we have police power, we have the right and responsibility to protect our citizens.
00:43:38.660There is a constitution of the state of Texas that is a compact between the citizens of Texas and the state government of Texas that says, essentially, that the state government has to protect its citizens.
00:43:51.420And how can they do that if millions of foreigners are able to just cross the border whenever they feel like it, and no one's going to stop them because the federal government's decided to abrogate its responsibilities?
00:44:01.020This is the whole, there is no doubt whatsoever that Texas must stand up for itself right now.
00:44:08.900If they don't, then this entire country is completely screwed, and there's no point in having states right anymore, frankly.
00:44:17.560And because, and I'll just leave it at this, if this were an army, and obviously it's not an army, but let's just imagine that the Mexican government decided that they were going to send troops into Texas, and that the United States of Texas, the federal government said, you know what, without passing any laws, the president just said, you know what, that's fine, you can have it.
00:44:39.880And so then Texas decides, you know, we're going to fight back. We're not going to allow people to just take over Texas. And the federal government sues and says, no, no, you have to, you don't have the right to defend yourself. Sorry. Would anybody think that that's okay? Of course not. Nobody would think that scenario is fine. And I don't see a gigantic difference. There is a difference, but I don't see a gigantic difference between that scenario and this scenario. It is, it is very similar.
00:45:05.860Oh, yeah. Well, Beto O'Rourke is saying that Biden should send troops down there to, quote, ensure compliance with the law. Yikes. Yikes. What's that going to look like? He says that this happened in 1957. Apparently, Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Guard to ensure compliance with the law when Governor Faubus basically did the same thing, apparently, as Abbott. I don't know about this story, but I imagine that this is, this is going to be pretty difficult to do when it's going to be televised. I mean, what are you going to do?
00:45:34.160Are you, are you, are you, are you going to shoot Texas's troops? What are you going to do? I mean, that's, that's crazy.
00:45:41.760It is crazy. And, and I, and I don't think that they will do that. I mean, if I had to put money on it, I would say, no, I don't, I don't think that's going to happen. I think they're banking on Texas backing down.
00:45:53.720Yeah. And I hope that Texas doesn't. I hope they stand up for their rights here because they have an obligation to protect their own citizens. And if they're not willing to do that, then they're violating their own laws and their own constitution. And I think that that's just as important as any obligation that, that they have to the federal government.
00:46:11.960Absolutely. So back to the WEF, this might not even, none of this might even be a problem in a few years because we won't even be able to elect our state governments to defy the federal government.
00:46:26.260says Klaus Schwab. He says that because of AI and it's increasingly predictive capabilities and prescriptive capabilities, that we will not have to even have elections anymore.
00:46:44.520I guess because computers are going to be able to do all of that for us. So here's SOT2.
00:46:50.800Is digital technologies mainly have an analytical power. Now we go into a predictive power. But since the next step could be to go into a prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what predict.
00:47:16.840And afterwards you can say, why do we need elections? Because we know what the result will be.
00:47:23.560Okay. Well, can you interpret this for us? Not just because he's actually hard to understand, but what does he mean by all this?
00:47:30.740Right. So Glenn Beck and I put out a book earlier in, well, in 2023 called Dark Future.
00:47:39.240And Dark Future was about exactly this kind of thing. It was about the use of technology, the development of technology from people at the World Economic Forum and the corporations that are part of the World Economic Forum and so on and so forth to control society through technological advancements.
00:47:59.620And artificial intelligence is one of those topics that we talk about a lot and we talk about this exact thing that Klaus Schwab is talking about in this book.
00:48:06.940The idea that as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly more intelligent, more capable of mimicking human thought and then eventually being even better at dealing with problems than human beings, analyzing data and coming up with conclusions.
00:48:26.780Lawmakers, policymakers, influential people like Klaus Schwab are going to rely more and more on those technologies and they're going to make the argument that, look, these things are better than human beings at predicting the future.
00:48:42.720They're better at human beings at deciding how to solve problems that exist in society.
00:48:48.280So why are we the ones making those decisions?
00:48:50.820We should just let them make the decisions and then we should just do what they want.
00:48:54.880And there's been lots of discussion within the field of AI and algorithms and things like that, where you have experts laying out that as a possibility.
00:49:05.060And Klaus Schwab is doing that in that clip right there.
00:49:08.300And the really insidious part of all of it is, well, one of the really insidious parts of it is who's designing the artificial intelligence, right?
00:49:18.140And who's designing these technologies right now so that if they do end up in a position where they're actually deciding laws, where they're actually sort of shaping how society functions on a day-to-day basis, it's in line with their foundational programming and the way that they're being trained.
00:49:37.320It's people at the W.E.F. It's people like Klaus Schwab.
00:49:40.960They're the ones writing the rules for it.
00:49:42.620So, of course, they want to be an input.
00:49:45.320There still has to be an input to determine the output.
00:49:49.640I mean, computers are still made by humans, and so they are going to have biases.
00:49:54.340We've already seen that with things like chat GPT.
00:49:56.760The people who write, chat GPT, and have made this artificial intelligence, like what they think about politics, what they think about the world, is being input into these computers.
00:50:09.920And we have already seen what direction they go.
00:50:12.900There's no – I haven't seen any based AI.
00:50:15.580It's all been, like, pretty progressive.
00:50:17.580And so I imagine that this artificial intelligence that apparently will be deciding our elections for us would probably be the same way.
00:50:26.080So I think that you're right about that.
00:50:27.780Now, what is very concerning about people like this deciding our elections for us and, you know, enacting laws that are going to determine our freedoms and affect our everyday lives is that the people who are in charge, the people who are with, you know, advising Klaus Schwab,
00:50:50.780they really don't believe in fundamental things like human rights.
00:51:37.520OK, well, I mean, on the one hand, like in one sense, he is correct in that if human rights are not based in God, if they're not based in an authority that is higher than earthly governments, well, then they are very arbitrary.
00:51:56.540If they are manmade, then men can take them away.
00:52:00.540But that is actually what the United States is founded upon in the Declaration of Independence, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
00:52:12.900And so the founders knew that the founders predicted this exactly what he is saying, that, OK, if our fundamental rights are our right to worship, our right to life, our right to free speech, if they are dependent upon, you know, the capricious will of the government, then we're in trouble.
00:52:28.000Then every time someone new comes in power, which they knew very well from their own history in England, then these rights are going to be threatened.
00:52:40.080The old rights are going to be taken away, whatever.
00:52:42.020And that's why they said, actually, these rights are they come from something that is higher than the government, a power that transcends the government.
00:52:50.880So in one sense, this guy is kind of correct in that if they're just manmade, then what are they really?
00:52:57.480It is kind of a fiction, but that is also a threat to the existence of America.
00:53:17.860And that's the danger of depending too heavily on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies,
00:53:26.080because artificial intelligence is essentially at its core, it's essentially it's it's based on just algorithms and math and trying to predict outcomes using lots and lots of data.
00:53:39.540That's that's primarily what it's doing. It's making decisions based on massive amounts of data.
00:53:44.240And so you can imagine in a in a world where if you have a worldview like Yuval Harari and a lot of other people at the World Economic Forum,
00:53:52.720where you don't really believe that there is a higher power from which individual liberties and rights come,
00:53:59.440but rather that really societies should just be making decisions either collectively or elites should be making decisions on behalf of people because it's the sort of utilitarian.
00:54:11.380What is the the optimal outcome? How do we get the optimal outcome?
00:54:15.180However, however, they define that. But we're going to take individual rights out of the equation.
00:54:19.440Then if you plug something like that idea into an artificial intelligence program and you say, OK, we want to eliminate poverty or we want to reduce poverty by as much as possible.
00:54:29.980Whatever the answer is, if artificial intelligence is not taking individual rights into account, you could end up with all kinds of really crazy things.
00:54:38.700For example, maybe you just start killing people. I don't know. That might be the best way to alleviate poverty.
00:54:44.480You know, maybe you have eugenics wouldn't be the first time that a government believed that.
00:54:49.680I mean, now comes to mind. But continue. Yes. Yes.
00:54:53.400And that's the point. Mao and a bunch of other people who have done similar things also had that same foundational worldview of.
00:55:02.280Well, there isn't really this singular Judeo-Christian God that's laid down these eternal truths or or like the Muslim God or any of those like they they rejected all those concepts.
00:55:15.640I mean, communism largely and still is today, but especially at the time of Mao was atheistic, exclusively atheistic in many circles.
00:55:25.080And so they rejected this concept of of this sort of universal objective standard of morality.
00:55:31.600Everything becomes subjective. So when you take that worldview and you plug it into a computer that's just giving you the optimal outcome, however you can possibly get there, it doesn't matter.
00:55:41.480And the rules for how you get there are determined by people like Yuval Harari in the World Economic Forum.
00:55:47.800Then you end up with all kinds of authoritarian policies that emerge out of that, that they're even worse than our worst nightmares have been in the past, because if the if the ends justify the means.
00:56:01.780Yeah. Always, which is essentially what what he's alluding to, then you could end up with with with lots of blood on the streets before you can get to the ends part of it.
00:56:12.580And the A.I., unlike a human being like Mao or someone like that, who is a monster, but he's still a human being, A.I. has zero empathy, zero problem with saying, well, maybe we should just kill everybody.
00:56:26.300Exactly. It's just what however you get to the optimal outcome as it's been programmed to do.
00:56:30.840And so this is an incredibly, incredibly dangerous concept. And that's why foundationally one of the essential issues of our time, even though most people don't talk about it, although you do.
00:56:44.240But one of the foundational issues of our time is this idea of do we actually have an objective standard of morality given to us by a supreme higher being from which we get all of our individual rights, which are inalienable.
00:56:59.200That means not breakable, untransferable. Or is it just anything goes and it's just either the collective decides or elites decide or whoever has the most guns decide or does A.I. decide?
00:57:15.100And you just end up with, well, then rights are totally meaningless, which is exactly what you've already saying.
00:57:20.500Yeah. We have to have that foundational debate and win that argument or else we are headed for very dark times.
00:57:28.300People don't understand. Even on the conservative side, I think people don't understand what a post-Christian world is.
00:57:34.020They don't. They think that the theological foundation, that that's just optional, that classical liberalism is a good enough.
00:57:40.520No, classical liberalism isn't a foundation. It might have been something that we have tried to build on the foundation of Christianity, agree or disagree with it, but it's not a foundation.
00:57:51.400Every time I have an atheist on my show who I agree with on something like gender or social justice or something, I always ask this question.
00:57:58.300Okay, but where do rights come from? Where does morality come from? Where does truth come from?
00:58:03.460And as brilliant as they are and as compassionate people as they are, they cannot tell me. They cannot tell me.
00:58:09.680And if we cannot agree on that on the right or whatever side we're on, the non-crazy, non-WEF side, if we cannot decide on our foundation, then none of it's going to work.
00:58:21.960Whereas the left just wants to destroy, the right is trying to build.
00:58:25.620But in order to effectively build something, you have to agree on the foundation that you are going to build on.
00:58:30.980And I think this also, it's not just all of this, the result of godlessness, the belief that there is no higher transcendent power that gives us our rights, but it's also just even from a secular perspective, lack of the knowledge of the Bible.
00:58:46.220The Bible used to have to be, it had to be read in schools, even if it wasn't trying to give people theological or spiritual prescriptions.
00:58:55.960Like we still understood that it was the most important piece of literature in Western civilization, that you really can't understand our history.
00:59:05.740You really can't understand our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, even the original state charters.
00:59:11.200You can't really understand who we are as Americans or members of Western civilization without knowing the Bible.
00:59:17.420If we knew the Bible, even again, if you don't believe it, you would be able to look at something like AI and what Schwab has to say about, oh, we don't need elections.
00:59:59.540But because we are completely biblically illiterate, because we are totally theologically ignorant, because we are godless, because we have embraced relativism, that is the only way that the powers that be at WEF, the UN, whatever,
01:00:13.280have been able to make the ground that they have, because we are so ignorant of the things that matter, of where we come from and why we're here and why rights actually exist.
01:00:26.120That's what makes us ripe for the victimization from, you know, from the powers in these global institutions.
01:00:36.440Yeah, and I think for a long time we've been in the West, Europe, you know, is a better example of this in America, but we're seeing it in America too.
01:00:47.960We've been benefiting from the established Judeo-Christian worldview that even if people rejected it, this sort of vapors of it have existed.
01:01:01.280The institute, the ideas have persisted in society, even when lots of people said, well, we just don't believe this God thing, but they were still being impacted by it through the culture and other things.
01:01:14.100And so everybody kind of agreed, like it's not a good idea to cheat on your spouse.
01:01:18.120It's not a good idea to lie and to cheat and to steal and to murder and, you know, all these other concepts, right?
01:01:25.240Like they all sort of agree on that. And as we've moved further and further away from it, though, it started to erode.
01:01:34.220And now you're getting more and more people who say, why do we even have this?
01:01:38.640In fact, they're going the opposite direction. They're saying, you know, the Bible is just written by a bunch of sexist men, right?
01:01:44.820Like, you know, that they were homophobic and they were sexist and they and so we shouldn't listen to them.
01:01:49.820And, you know, the Constitution that was written by a bunch of white guys who hated black people.
01:01:54.060So we shouldn't listen to them either. And now and now we're like, it's not even well, I agree with the principles that humanity stumbled upon in this whole process of human development.
01:02:05.080I just don't really believe the theology aspect to it, too. I don't believe any of it now.
01:02:11.160We should just burn the whole thing down and start all over again.
01:02:14.040And the problem with that, of course, is the moment you go in that direction, you end up with absolute tyranny.
01:02:20.820And that and that is not an opinion. That is just a historical analysis of every other country that's tried to do this.
01:02:27.600Yep. All you have to you don't even have to go back that far. You just got to look at most of the 20th century.
01:02:32.820There were lots of attempts to do that. And now there are new attempts to do that.
01:02:36.900It's not, as you have argued so many times, not just straight up socialism and communism,
01:02:42.040but actually in some way, these people at the WEF, they have realized that people do need a God.
01:02:48.540They need something to control them. They need someone to tell them what to do or people will seek that anyway.
01:02:54.440And so whereas communism and socialism, at least their premise is that while the people can rule themselves,
01:03:02.180even though it's never actually worked out that way, I think that the oligarchs of the WEF realized, well, that doesn't work.
01:03:08.920And so we can just not get rid of God, but replace him. And that is ultimately what this is all about.
01:03:15.020And that's a very, it's a very, very scary prospect. Okay, Justin, we didn't even get into everything that I wanted to, as always.
01:03:24.200So we'll have to have you back on soon and talk about some of the scary things that the WHO is calling for with Disease X.
01:03:32.040But we don't have time to get into all that today. So just tell people where they can find you, where they can buy your books.
01:03:37.300Sure. Then go to any place that books are sold, amazon.com, you know, Barnes and Noble, anywhere like that.
01:03:43.280A dark future. That's my latest book with Glenn Beck. We've got another book we're working on.
01:03:47.500I can't talk about it, but we've got another one. We're coming. That's going to come out probably before the election.
01:03:51.760That's about propaganda and things like that. So that's going to be really exciting.
01:03:55.820And of course, go to heartland.org to see all of the great things that we're doing at the Heartland Institute.
01:04:01.240Thank you so much, Justin. As always, very impressed by just the amount of work that you and Glenn Beck do every year
01:04:07.120in churning out these books. So helpful. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much.