Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 940 ｜ WEF vs. the West： The Latest in Davos’ Global Takeover ｜ Guest： Justin Haskins

00:00:00.460 The world's elite gathered this week at Davos to talk about how they can make sure that

00:00:06.400 we don't talk, to make sure that we don't say things that they disagree with.

00:00:12.540 We've got Justin Haskins here.

00:00:14.140 He is an expert on all things World Economic Forum.

00:00:17.100 He is going to detail their plans to curb so-called disinformation and misinformation.

00:00:23.280 We're going to be talking about that and a lot more.

00:00:26.140 As always, this is kind of an overwhelming conversation, but we've got strategies as well

00:00:30.940 to encourage you to employ, to protect ourselves from the predation of these global institutions.

00:00:38.540 So without further ado, here is our friend, Justin Haskins.

00:00:51.260 Okay, Justin, thank you so much for joining us again.

00:00:55.220 You have the privilege of getting to be the person on our show that tells us all of the

00:01:00.060 scary things that are happening and all of the frightening subjects that the elites that

00:01:05.760 try to control us are talking about at Davos.

00:01:09.160 So let's start with an overview.

00:01:12.360 What was the theme of Davos this year?

00:01:16.540 Yeah, so the theme this year for Davos, we've seen all kinds of different themes in the past,

00:01:22.420 but this year it was misinformation and disinformation.

00:01:26.480 Building trust was one way that they framed it.

00:01:30.060 But this kind of mirrors their recent global risks report that they put out.

00:01:36.080 They put this out every single year where they interview a bunch of experts and they say,

00:01:40.060 what are the biggest problems facing the world?

00:01:42.680 What are the biggest risks over the next two years and over the next 10 years?

00:01:46.200 And the number one answer that they got in that report became their topic,

00:01:51.400 their chief topic for this conference, misinformation and disinformation.

00:01:55.420 That was much, much higher in the survey, by the way, than global conflict, like armed conflict,

00:02:03.620 which is incredible because there's two massive wars going on right now in the world.

00:02:08.260 So you would think that would be number one or two at least, but it wasn't.

00:02:11.640 It was like five, I think, on the list.

00:02:13.040 So that was the main topic at Davos.

00:02:15.720 They had thousands of people go to Davos every single year.

00:02:19.100 They had 200 panels at Davos this year, 200 panels.

00:02:23.640 And so we had a team of like three or four people just watching panels nonstop,

00:02:28.800 and we couldn't even get through all the panels.

00:02:31.680 But this topic of misinformation, disinformation, that was the main thing.

00:02:35.640 It kept coming up over and over and over again.

00:02:38.540 One influential leader after another discussing it.

00:02:41.580 And I think that there's a really important reason for why that's their focus.

00:02:47.040 Over the past few years, they've had these big, gigantic grand plans rolled out at Davos.

00:02:52.520 We've had great reset.

00:02:53.880 We've had Davos manifesto.

00:02:56.340 We've had big, elaborate talks about a European New Deal, Green New Deal, and a Green New Deal in America and all this stuff.

00:03:04.040 And all those things have fallen flat on their face.

00:03:07.100 The trust in Davos is at an all-time low, and it was never super high, but now it's really low.

00:03:13.700 People don't like elites at all.

00:03:15.700 All those things have backfired.

00:03:17.700 And, of course, instead of looking in the mirror and saying, well, maybe we should change the way that we handle things.

00:03:23.480 Maybe people don't want to be controlled by a global elite at Davos, you know, full of millionaires and billionaires and giant corporations.

00:03:32.040 Maybe they don't want that.

00:03:32.900 Instead 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.

00:03:43.320 And if we could just control that problem and shut people up, then maybe we could actually get some stuff done.

00:03:51.440 And this came out in a lot of different ways throughout the conference.

00:03:53.760 But that, to me, was the biggest takeaway for this year.

00:03:57.360 OK, so let's define those terms.

00:03:59.800 How are they defining misinformation and disinformation?

00:04:03.680 Yeah, well, basically, it's a deliberate attempt to spread information that is knowingly false.

00:04:14.640 OK, so the people saying it are deliberately saying things they know are not true.

00:04:20.000 And so they're lying about these big sort of elaborate policies, plans, global risks, et cetera.

00:04:27.220 That's how they would define it in a broad sense.

00:04:30.400 But 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.

00:04:41.640 Anytime 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.

00:04:56.460 Anybody who says things like that, those would be examples of misinformation and disinformation.

00:05:01.040 So if you disagree with them, that's misinformation and disinformation.

00:05:05.620 And 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.

00:05:17.960 But that isn't misinformation or disinformation.

00:05:20.520 They always label it that way.

00:05:22.260 That's how they always label it.

00:05:23.600 So it really is just any sort of disagreement that you have with the establishment elites.

00:05:30.260 OK, so this is what this is how they described it.

00:05:34.460 And it uses the euphemisms that you were saying that they used.

00:05:38.320 The 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.

00:05:50.860 But what it sounds like you're saying is that they actually mean the opposite of those things.

00:05:55.520 The people in charge, at least the people that Davos or the World Economic Forum agrees with, they're not being held accountable.

00:06:04.240 They don't have to be consistent in their principles.

00:06:07.000 They don't have to be transparent in why they're doing what they're doing.

00:06:10.300 I'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.

00:06:24.560 There's been no accountability, no consistency, no transparency for him.

00:06:28.380 That's what we see with all of these leaders.

00:06:30.140 I 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.

00:06:41.820 And this has just been true year after year, right?

00:06:45.120 Saying things and actually meaning the opposite of what they say.

00:06:50.000 Yeah.

00:06:50.360 Well, I mean, think about the irony of this.

00:06:52.900 You 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.

00:07:09.580 So, I mean, it's ludicrous.

00:07:11.720 That's how they've always presented it.

00:07:13.440 They love to talk about how the stakeholders, which is just everybody, you and I, we're stakeholders.

00:07:17.960 You know, we get input in all of this, but we're not invited to Davos.

00:07:22.540 It's not like you and I get to go sit on the panels and give our two cents about their plans.

00:07:26.760 So, yeah, it's just what they tell people, because they don't want to be honest. 1.00

00:07:31.560 The 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. 1.00

00:07:40.980 That's how they view the world. 1.00

00:07:42.940 I have no doubt about it whatsoever. 1.00

00:07:44.340 And 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. 0.99

00:07:56.220 And that's a huge problem. 0.99

00:07:57.520 We've got to get these unruly sheep back in order. 0.63

00:08:00.560 That's what this is all about.

00:08:02.720 Gotcha.

00:08:03.240 So, misinformation and disinformation, what they mean by that, as you said, is opinions, perspectives, facts that don't align with their narratives,

00:08:11.420 whether it's on climate change, whether it's on gender ideology, whether it's on economics, whatever it is.

00:08:18.860 If there are subversive or oppositional voices to their approved-of narratives, that's what they qualify.

00:08:29.280 That's what they count as misinformation or disinformation.

00:08:33.100 And 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.

00:08:44.140 So, it's for your own good that you can no longer have what they would call this privilege of free speech.

00:08:51.140 Now, 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.

00:09:04.760 One of them was Javier Malay from Argentina.

00:09:09.140 He is their new populist free market conservative president.

00:09:12.680 And here he is telling the people at Davos to deny the state.

00:09:21.820 Do not surrender to the advance of the state.

00:09:25.880 The state is not the solution.

00:09:27.140 The state is the problem itself.

00:09:29.360 You are the true protagonists of this story.

00:09:32.480 And rest assured that, as from today, Argentina is your staunch, unconditional ally.

00:09:38.400 Thank you very much and long live freedom. 0.99

00:09:40.460 Damn it. 0.99

00:09:40.900 So, 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. 0.99

00:09:50.540 And he also says, I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger.

00:09:54.160 It 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.

00:10:03.940 The main leaders of the Western world, he said, have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism.

00:10:09.840 We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world.

00:10:16.920 Rather, they're the root cause.

00:10:18.300 I 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.

00:10:26.820 I 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.

00:10:37.200 And 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.

00:10:47.120 So tell me your assessment.

00:10:48.180 Yeah, it's actually a really genius move when you think about it.

00:10:52.860 So if the theme is building trust, we have to rebuild trust.

00:10:56.700 We 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.

00:11:05.620 It's really a collection of organizations and people and corporations and stuff trying to do that.

00:11:10.860 But I really do think that's what they're doing.

00:11:12.740 If 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.

00:11:23.360 There was no way that they thought that somebody like Javier Malay or Kevin Roberts from the Heritage Foundation, who also was on a panel.

00:11:31.100 There's no way that they thought those people are going to get there and say glowing things about the World Economic Forum.

00:11:34.980 I mean, there's just no way they thought that.

00:11:36.960 So you put them up on stage.

00:11:38.340 There 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.

00:11:49.580 And that's fine, because 99 percent of the rest of the agenda is giving a completely different picture of things.

00:11:56.640 And there was another speech, which I think is which has gotten no attention.

00:12:00.620 And again, this is sort of the genius of it, right?

00:12:02.340 There was another speech given by the head of the United Nations, which nobody has paid any attention to at all.

00:12:09.260 In 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,

00:12:19.860 we're really excited about this big annual United Nations meeting of the heads of state that's coming up in September.

00:12:27.080 And we're all in.

00:12:28.320 We're all behind you.

00:12:29.360 Now, 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,

00:12:40.660 who's one of the most radical people you'll ever find in the entire world.

00:12:44.260 It's part of an our this our common agenda plan that the U.N. is pushing behind the scenes.

00:12:51.380 There's going to be a meeting in September.

00:12:53.500 The heads of state are going to go to it, similar to like the Paris Climate Accord agreements and things like that.

00:12:58.480 And out of that, they've already decided there's going to be an agreement called Pact for the Future.

00:13:03.200 They already have a name for it and everything.

00:13:04.480 The details of what's going to be in it are being finalized right now.

00:13:08.920 They have policy papers on the U.N. website.

00:13:11.780 They'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.

00:13:20.680 It's all posted on their website.

00:13:22.600 The 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.

00:13:30.120 That'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.

00:13:47.780 And do any does any of that get headlines?

00:13:49.880 No. What gets headlines is Javier Malay standing up there saying you guys are all garbage, basically. 1.00

00:13:56.100 And 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. 0.98

00:14:07.140 And they don't care what Javier Malay says. They care what the head of the United Nations says.

00:14:11.180 And that's the whole point of these meetings.

00:14:13.100 So you've brought up Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, which I'm very thankful for his leadership.

00:14:31.100 He'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.

00:14:39.800 And here's what he here's what he said or part of what he said.

00:14:43.620 To regain trust, Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits and natural rights of nations, families and individuals to govern themselves.

00:14:52.340 The World Economic Forum needs to hear that message.

00:14:55.840 He talks about the dangers of Marxism and the dangers of collectivist governments around the world.

00:15:01.260 He says they use their power to disempower us and their cultural influence to smear anyone who questions their self-serving corruption.

00:15:10.740 Unchecked, centralized power leads to tyranny and the disasters compound the farther the power drifts or is untethered from the people.

00:15:18.660 To regain trust, then Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits.

00:15:22.880 And OK, I already said that the natural rights of individual nations to govern themselves.

00:15:28.460 What we need is nothing more than the freedom to govern ourselves.

00:15:32.600 And so he wrote that and he also said a lot of that when he was speaking on a panel at Davos.

00:15:39.160 And now the Wall Street Journal, they have a headline titled this.

00:15:43.500 And maybe you think this is just misdirected attention.

00:15:45.880 But they said Davos turns gently right.

00:15:49.980 And then they talk about some of the people that we just noted.

00:15:53.960 And they argue that maybe they're trying to preempt some backlash, kind of what you argued.

00:16:00.640 That, 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.

00:16:10.900 But 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.

00:16:21.920 And by just saying, well, look, no, we're fair.

00:16:24.600 We're looking at both sides of this.

00:16:26.460 This is not really about power.

00:16:28.000 We 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.

00:16:36.560 Is that what you think?

00:16:37.360 Yeah. And this is something that's been happening for a long time, actually.

00:16:42.660 It's not this is not a new strategy.

00:16:44.900 I mean, if I remember correctly, and I think I think I do.

00:16:49.240 Donald Trump has spoken there before.

00:16:52.620 Greg Abbott has been there before.

00:16:54.980 Dan Crenshaw has been there before.

00:16:57.000 There have been many people who have been there before that you wouldn't classify as as sort of a Davos elite.

00:17:02.740 It's it's not as though this is the first time that they've invited people who disagree with them.

00:17:07.360 They often do that because they want people at the conference who are, you know, your sort of token individual liberty person.

00:17:17.080 No one can say, well, you guys are all just one single mind here.

00:17:20.980 No, no, no.

00:17:21.500 We're a forum and we have all sorts of different viewpoints.

00:17:24.300 Well, yeah, technically you do.

00:17:26.680 But ninety nine percent of the speakers all agree.

00:17:29.420 They're all moving in one direction.

00:17:31.120 They're all going with the same game plan.

00:17:33.380 And 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.

00:17:42.920 That's fine. As long as at the end of the day, you get what you want.

00:17:47.280 And that that's really so I think, again, building trust.

00:17:50.940 How do you build trust?

00:17:52.100 You got to convince people you're not as as far to the left as you say you are or as you appears that you are, that people say you are.

00:18:00.120 And that's exactly what they try to do by putting these token conservative libertarian types up on the stage.

00:18:05.940 I don't think it means anything at all other than it's just a it's just a marketing ploy.

00:18:09.780 And I think it worked pretty well.

00:18:10.820 Right. Yeah, I think so, too, especially if you have the Wall Street Journal saying, oh, they're turning right.

00:18:15.800 They'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.

00:18:23.900 And as you just pointed out, that's not true.

00:18:26.340 That's an appeasement strategy so they can have cover to continue doing what they want to do.

00:18:31.380 And 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.

00:18:39.720 So tell me about some of the strategies that they suggested to rein in this so-called disinformation.

00:18:45.540 Yeah. 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.

00:18:57.000 Like, this is the idea. It's government and private corporations working hand in hand to accomplish some sort of greater purpose.

00:19:04.180 And 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.

00:19:21.740 So 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?

00:19:32.720 So they work hand in hand all the time.

00:19:34.720 They have all kinds of special projects with each other, especially on technology and social media and the internet and all of that.

00:19:42.400 And 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.

00:19:53.320 Because, 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.

00:20:05.820 In 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.

00:20:16.480 And so if they're going to control speech, they have to get the private sector doing the dirty work for them. 0.95

00:20:23.440 This is the whole concept of the Great Reset.

00:20:26.680 How do we transform societies?

00:20:28.560 You can't do it all through government because there's all these constitutional protections and other things that get in the way of it.

00:20:35.020 But 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.

00:20:49.320 So that idea was the idea that was floated over and over and over again.

00:20:53.960 But there were also hints and just hints of it.

00:20:57.700 But 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.

00:21:11.400 At 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.

00:21:23.160 But 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.

00:21:36.180 And so that's actual, that's government, that would be government silencing speech on an international level.

00:21:44.280 And so there were hints that that was alluded to in this conference as well.

00:21:51.280 And that's really more, that's more hard authoritarianism, not just this public-private partnership stuff.

00:21:56.440 But I think that if the World Economic Forum had it its way, you wouldn't need to have that.

00:22:02.260 You could just have the private sector doing what they consider to be the right thing.

00:22:06.520 Just silence all the people who are not going along with the standard talking points, and that's good enough.

00:22:14.280 But in the event that that doesn't work out, they have a backup plan.

00:22:17.700 The 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.

00:22:25.840 And I think that that's kind of always lingering in the background of all these conferences.

00:22:30.420 Right.

00:22:31.440 This is according to The Blaze.

00:22:33.200 There was the panel on defending truth, and one of the panelists was Jean Burgault, the president and CEO of Internews.

00:22:44.560 And they talk about making these exclusion lists that are then defunded somehow for sharing so-called disinformation.

00:22:53.120 He explained that one of the most effective ways to keep people from being exposed to so-called inaccurate information.

00:22:59.340 So we are the victims.

00:23:00.640 These stakeholders are the victims of this disinformation, and these guardians of our galaxy are just trying to help us.

00:23:08.580 So 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.

00:23:19.860 So this is a concerted effort.

00:23:23.380 Like there are already companies that do this.

00:23:25.600 There 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.

00:23:39.940 It's happened to a lot of conservative commentators.

00:23:42.900 But 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.

00:23:55.580 That 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.

00:24:04.060 And that's pretty scary.

00:24:06.240 Yeah, it is.

00:24:07.340 And this is this is what The Great Reset is all about.

00:24:10.440 It'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?

00:24:25.300 So 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.

00:24:32.620 We can actually just destroy everyone.

00:24:34.720 We don't even necessarily need to pass a law to stop someone from speaking.

00:24:39.100 We can just make it impossible for them to have a business.

00:24:42.300 And if we can just destroy them that way, then it solves it serves that same purpose that we had in the past.

00:24:49.180 Governments used to have to throw people in gulags.

00:24:51.220 Now 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.

00:25:02.220 And all of a sudden it's like, well, they're going to be gone anyway.

00:25:06.240 We're going to move them out of the way.

00:25:07.880 And 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.

00:25:25.520 One where they have a responsibility to ensure that society has more trust in institutions.

00:25:32.760 They use this kind of language and really what it means is exactly what you were just alluding to.

00:25:37.300 We have to make sure that the money dries up for the people that we don't agree with.

00:25:43.760 If the money dry and the best way to do that is through the financial institutions.

00:25:46.940 If 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.

00:25:59.860 Everyone's going to have to do what we want them to do.

00:26:02.680 And there's there's actually this.

00:26:04.240 And again, this kind of what I was saying before about this plan for in the future, this our common agenda.

00:26:09.680 There'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.

00:26:19.060 Now, there's this plan for a mandatory European social credit scoring system.

00:26:25.760 They call it due diligence in the European Union.

00:26:28.480 That is nearly law.

00:26:30.620 It's almost law.

00:26:31.560 It's been approved by a bunch of different legislative bodies in the European Union.

00:26:35.700 They're just hammering out the final details of it.

00:26:38.360 It literally could be passed within the next three or four months and made law.

00:26:43.640 And 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.

00:26:58.100 And 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.

00:27:17.060 They 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.

00:27:26.320 So think about how insane this is.

00:27:27.620 You could have some you know, Ford, for example, Ford car company.

00:27:32.260 They sell lots of cars in the European Union.

00:27:34.220 They would fall above that threshold.

00:27:35.960 So they would have to submit Ford would to the mandatory ESG social credit scoring system that the European Union is proposing.

00:27:43.580 And 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.

00:27:52.740 But give me an example of what Ford may have to do if they had to comply with a law like this.

00:27:58.360 Right.

00:27:58.920 So so a social credit score is just a non-financial it's non-financial measurements of a company.

00:28:05.800 It's an evaluation of a company that's not based on financial criteria.

00:28:09.360 So 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.

00:28:23.460 So what is the gender ratio of your middle management, for example, is one such metric that exists.

00:28:30.880 These are all these aren't proposed.

00:28:32.340 These exist already.

00:28:33.680 Yeah.

00:28:33.920 Currently, they're just not mandated by government.

00:28:36.860 What what what sort of investments are you making into activist community programs?

00:28:43.720 Right.

00:28:44.140 How committed are you to fighting climate change?

00:28:47.100 Racial quotas. 0.92

00:28:47.760 How much water do you use?

00:28:48.880 Racial quotas. 0.92

00:28:49.900 How much water do you use?

00:28:50.960 And then for Ford, of course.

00:28:52.580 OK, how quickly are you going to phase out gas powered cars?

00:28:56.280 When are you going to have all electric cars?

00:28:58.480 And 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.

00:29:04.580 Most people in the United States still want to use gasoline.

00:29:08.340 But 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.

00:29:17.760 And 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.

00:29:28.320 If 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.,

00:29:47.540 who run the W.E.F. And so that's how it that's how it works.

00:29:52.380 And 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.

00:30:01.980 It doesn't really infringe upon the First Amendment because it's not the government directly.

00:30:06.440 If it was the American government making a law saying, well, you can't say this or you can't say that.

00:30:12.080 But it is making a law, even if it's not in America, in Europe, it all comes together.

00:30:18.440 It'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.

00:30:31.560 So it's their way to get around the Constitution.

00:30:34.580 It's their way of getting around supply and demand. Right.

00:30:37.480 That'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,

00:30:48.480 which, 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.

00:30:56.520 And 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,

00:31:06.480 if 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,

00:31:15.280 then you have to be fighting climate change. You have to be fighting against misinformation and disinformation as they define it in their rules.

00:31:21.900 You 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. 0.56

00:31:33.400 You 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,

00:31:42.180 then you're going to get caught up in that. And that's the way that you change in their minds.

00:31:47.240 That's the way that you change culture, not just in Europe, but that's how you change culture everywhere in the world.

00:31:54.380 Because if every corporation is sending the same message through their products and their services and their advertising and their hiring policies,

00:32:02.420 because they have really no choice but to do it, then downstream of those choices, this is what elites are hoping,

00:32:09.840 the rest of culture changes, too, because that's the message that they're getting from everywhere, everywhere they look.

00:32:16.560 That's the message that they're going to get. And the left in America already has control of most of the academic institutions.

00:32:21.680 They already have control of Hollywood. They already have control of the music industry.

00:32:24.800 They 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.

00:32:32.440 Yeah. And the Constitution, which was sort of the last thing standing in the way of that and states' rights, all goes by the wayside.

00:32:40.720 Unless every major corporation in America decides, you know what, we don't care.

00:32:45.340 We're not doing business in Europe ever again. And we're not doing business with anybody who's in Europe ever again. 0.97

00:32:49.440 And we know that will never happen because there's too much money to be made there.

00:32:52.840 And most big corporations agree with this stuff anyway.

00:32:55.600 Yeah, 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.

00:33:03.540 And 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.

00:33:14.380 And 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.

00:33:31.660 At least for now, we are buying ourselves some time that maybe we can come up with some solutions to this.

00:33:39.020 And 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.

00:33:49.600 They 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.

00:34:03.860 And 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?

00:34:20.180 And 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.

00:34:27.780 They wouldn't leave my show because of those things. So the parallel economy when it comes to that is so important.

00:34:33.280 That's why it's so important for us to support those conservative and Christian companies, companies that support our values.

00:34:39.320 That's why companies like Public Square are important and all of that.

00:34:42.400 But 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.

00:35:02.700 So 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.

00:35:20.400 So but it's still important. It's still important for us to build this parallel economy.

00:35:23.980 It's important for places like The Blaze to have subscriber led content that's not dependent on advertisers.

00:35:31.040 That's another thing that's another thing that we can do. But we are going to have to create banking solutions.

00:35:35.840 We'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.

00:35:50.800 That'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.

00:36:04.100 Yeah, 100 percent. And that's why states are so important.

00:36:08.900 You 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.

00:36:23.780 You can have banks formulated under state law that don't exist under federal law like that's possible to do something like that.

00:36:32.080 You 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.

00:36:46.320 You can't do it on every single issue like states can't make their own currency, for example, or things like that.

00:36:51.140 But 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.

00:37:04.340 Like, that's really, really important. And most people, I think, are so focused on what happens at the federal level.

00:37:11.480 And 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.

00:37:18.080 When in reality, that's the only hope that we have anyway. The federal government's never going to do the right thing.

00:37:24.900 They 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.

00:37:31.160 So 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.

00:37:39.860 Okay, 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.

00:38:00.340 I'm sure that you are prepared to talk about that, at least in relation to states' rights and the conversation that we're having.

00:38:08.420 So as we talked about earlier this week on the show, the Supreme Court said, at least temporarily while litigation is going on,

00:38:16.140 that the federal government can continue to remove the razor wire that Texas has put at the border to deter illegal migration.

00:38:24.400 And, 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.

00:38:39.580 That 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.

00:38:56.320 So the Supreme Court said, yeah, this is a federal government problem. At least right now, they can remove this razor wire.

00:39:02.960 Well, Greg Abbott has come out with a statement that I think is pretty stunning for people.

00:39:07.300 So basically, I won't read the whole thing. It's long. But basically saying, look, the federal government, President Biden, has abandoned its responsibility.

00:39:17.700 And so I am declaring an invasion. This is an invasion. And this triggers a state's right to self-defense.

00:39:26.020 Basically, I'm going to defy you, President Biden and Mayorkas, and we are going to protect our border.

00:39:34.520 Here, come and stop us, basically. That's what he's saying. Come and stop us. Let's see what happens.

00:39:40.480 I 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?

00:39:53.240 Like, what does that look like? Is this a civil war? What happens?

00:39:57.300 I mean, I think it's great what Greg Abbott has done. As you said, we've got to protect states' rights. Absolutely.

00:40:02.780 And 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.

00:40:09.600 Yeah, this is I mean, predicting what's going to happen is is impossible.

00:40:13.580 I 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.

00:40:24.040 But 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.

00:40:35.900 And 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.

00:40:47.140 And that's a very dangerous situation once you start getting into that sort of thing.

00:40:50.720 However, I think that there is the Texas has no choice, no choice but to do this whatsoever.

00:40:57.260 There'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,

00:41:05.020 because we have laws on the books that say immigration laws on the books that say we get to do X, Y and Z.

00:41:10.840 And 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.

00:41:24.220 So they're not enforcing law, one set of laws that they're supposed to be doing.

00:41:28.740 That'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.

00:41:36.280 He's obviously not doing that on purpose, not because he can't, but because he doesn't want to.

00:41:42.300 And they're allowing millions and millions of people to come into the United States illegally without enforcing it.

00:41:48.360 And then when Texas, which I think you could make the argument because they have police powers and things like that,

00:41:54.280 have have a responsibility on on that side of things as well to just protect the citizens of Texas.

00:41:59.760 And that part of doing that requires that they take some of the steps that they are taking.

00:42:04.920 If the federal government isn't going to enforce its laws, I don't know.

00:42:09.700 I don't know how you could expect Texas to do anything other than that.

00:42:13.460 We can't.

00:42:15.800 Texas 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.

00:42:34.360 If 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.

00:42:40.580 Everybody understood at the time that the Constitution was written and all the states that joined after that, that it's a two-way street.

00:42:49.160 There's federal responsibilities, and they have an obligation to do certain things for the states, including protect them.

00:42:55.040 That's one of their obligations.

00:42:57.020 And 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.

00:43:04.700 And there's other things related to trade and stuff that they don't have authority over.

00:43:08.520 And immigration rules, generally speaking, is one of those things.

00:43:12.480 But 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?

00:43:26.540 Then, of course, the state of Texas has the right to step in and say, no, no, no, no, no.

00:43:31.360 That's not how this works.

00:43:32.760 We have rights to, we have police power, we have the right and responsibility to protect our citizens.

00:43:38.660 There 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.

00:43:51.420 And 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? 0.85

00:44:01.020 This is the whole, there is no doubt whatsoever that Texas must stand up for itself right now.

00:44:08.900 If they don't, then this entire country is completely screwed, and there's no point in having states right anymore, frankly.

00:44:17.560 And 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.

00:44:39.880 And 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.

00:45:05.860 Oh, 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?

00:45:34.160 Are 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. 0.98

00:45:41.760 It 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.

00:45:53.720 Yeah. 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.

00:46:11.960 Absolutely. 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.

00:46:26.260 says 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.

00:46:44.520 I guess because computers are going to be able to do all of that for us. So here's SOT2.

00:46:50.800 Is 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.

00:47:16.840 And afterwards you can say, why do we need elections? Because we know what the result will be.

00:47:23.560 Okay. Well, can you interpret this for us? Not just because he's actually hard to understand, but what does he mean by all this?

00:47:30.740 Right. So Glenn Beck and I put out a book earlier in, well, in 2023 called Dark Future.

00:47:39.240 And 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.

00:47:59.620 And 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.

00:48:06.940 The 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.

00:48:26.780 Lawmakers, 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.

00:48:42.720 They're better at human beings at deciding how to solve problems that exist in society.

00:48:48.280 So why are we the ones making those decisions?

00:48:50.820 We should just let them make the decisions and then we should just do what they want.

00:48:54.880 And 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.

00:49:05.060 And Klaus Schwab is doing that in that clip right there.

00:49:08.300 And 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?

00:49:18.140 And 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.

00:49:37.320 It's people at the W.E.F. It's people like Klaus Schwab.

00:49:40.960 They're the ones writing the rules for it.

00:49:42.620 So, of course, they want to be an input.

00:49:45.320 There still has to be an input to determine the output.

00:49:49.640 I mean, computers are still made by humans, and so they are going to have biases.

00:49:54.340 We've already seen that with things like chat GPT.

00:49:56.760 The 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.

00:50:09.920 And we have already seen what direction they go.

00:50:12.900 There's no – I haven't seen any based AI.

00:50:15.580 It's all been, like, pretty progressive.

00:50:17.580 And so I imagine that this artificial intelligence that apparently will be deciding our elections for us would probably be the same way.

00:50:26.080 So I think that you're right about that.

00:50:27.780 Now, 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,

00:50:50.780 they really don't believe in fundamental things like human rights.

00:50:57.240 There's been this clip going around.

00:50:58.560 It's actually from 2014.

00:51:00.340 And one of Schwab's top advisors, Yuval Noah Harari, he says basically that, well, human rights aren't a real thing.

00:51:10.680 So here's top four.

00:51:12.200 Many, maybe most legal systems are based on this idea, this belief in human rights.

00:51:19.020 But human rights are just like heaven and like God.

00:51:23.640 It's just a fictional story that we've invented and spread around.

00:51:28.340 It may be a very nice story.

00:51:31.180 It may be a very attractive story.

00:51:33.580 We want to believe it.

00:51:34.960 But it's just a story.

00:51:36.420 It's not a reality.

00:51:37.520 OK, 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.

00:51:56.540 If they are manmade, then men can take them away.

00:52:00.540 But 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.

00:52:12.900 And 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.

00:52:28.000 Then 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.

00:52:38.040 New rights are going to be created.

00:52:40.080 The old rights are going to be taken away, whatever.

00:52:42.020 And 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.

00:52:50.880 So in one sense, this guy is kind of correct in that if they're just manmade, then what are they really?

00:52:57.480 It is kind of a fiction, but that is also a threat to the existence of America.

00:53:03.680 That is a threat to our foundations.

00:53:05.520 That is a threat to everything that protects our right not to be victims of the whims of dictators.

00:53:15.280 Right. Yeah, that's that's exactly right.

00:53:17.860 And that's the danger of depending too heavily on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies,

00:53:26.080 because 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.

00:53:39.540 That's that's primarily what it's doing. It's making decisions based on massive amounts of data.

00:53:44.240 And 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,

00:53:52.720 where you don't really believe that there is a higher power from which individual liberties and rights come,

00:53:59.440 but 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.

00:54:11.380 What is the the optimal outcome? How do we get the optimal outcome?

00:54:15.180 However, however, they define that. But we're going to take individual rights out of the equation.

00:54:19.440 Then 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.

00:54:29.980 Whatever the answer is, if artificial intelligence is not taking individual rights into account, you could end up with all kinds of really crazy things.

00:54:38.700 For example, maybe you just start killing people. I don't know. That might be the best way to alleviate poverty.

00:54:44.480 You know, maybe you have eugenics wouldn't be the first time that a government believed that.

00:54:49.680 I mean, now comes to mind. But continue. Yes. Yes.

00:54:53.400 And that's the point. Mao and a bunch of other people who have done similar things also had that same foundational worldview of.

00:55:02.280 Well, 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. 0.85

00:55:15.640 I mean, communism largely and still is today, but especially at the time of Mao was atheistic, exclusively atheistic in many circles.

00:55:25.080 And so they rejected this concept of of this sort of universal objective standard of morality.

00:55:31.600 Everything 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.

00:55:41.480 And the rules for how you get there are determined by people like Yuval Harari in the World Economic Forum.

00:55:47.800 Then 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.

00:56:01.780 Yeah. 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.

00:56:12.580 And 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. 0.98

00:56:26.300 Exactly. It's just what however you get to the optimal outcome as it's been programmed to do. 0.95

00:56:30.840 And 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.

00:56:44.240 But 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.

00:56:59.200 That 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?

00:57:15.100 And you just end up with, well, then rights are totally meaningless, which is exactly what you've already saying.

00:57:20.500 Yeah. We have to have that foundational debate and win that argument or else we are headed for very dark times.

00:57:28.300 People don't understand. Even on the conservative side, I think people don't understand what a post-Christian world is.

00:57:34.020 They don't. They think that the theological foundation, that that's just optional, that classical liberalism is a good enough.

00:57:40.520 No, 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.

00:57:51.400 Every 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.

00:57:58.300 Okay, but where do rights come from? Where does morality come from? Where does truth come from?

00:58:03.460 And as brilliant as they are and as compassionate people as they are, they cannot tell me. They cannot tell me.

00:58:09.680 And 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.

00:58:21.960 Whereas the left just wants to destroy, the right is trying to build.

00:58:25.620 But in order to effectively build something, you have to agree on the foundation that you are going to build on.

00:58:30.980 And 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.

00:58:46.220 The 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.

00:58:55.960 Like we still understood that it was the most important piece of literature in Western civilization, that you really can't understand our history.

00:59:05.740 You really can't understand our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, even the original state charters.

00:59:11.200 You can't really understand who we are as Americans or members of Western civilization without knowing the Bible.

00:59:17.420 If 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.

00:59:27.140 We can just build AI to do that.

00:59:28.760 And you would be able to think, wow, this is our Tower of Babel. 0.70

00:59:32.660 AI is our Tower of Babel.

00:59:35.060 That did not end up well in the Bible.

00:59:37.160 Even if you, and I would think wrongly, but even if you just read the Bible as, okay, these are good principles.

00:59:43.100 These are good lessons.

00:59:44.100 This is something that we can learn.

00:59:46.460 You would at least be able to look at a story like that and say, oh, that caused chaos.

00:59:51.760 That was bad for humanity when men tried to be like God, to build something, to make them reach the heavens. 0.95

00:59:58.520 This is like that.

00:59:59.540 But 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,

01:00:13.280 have 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.

01:00:26.120 That's what makes us ripe for the victimization from, you know, from the powers in these global institutions.

01:00:36.440 Yeah, 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.

01:00:47.960 We've been benefiting from the established Judeo-Christian worldview that even if people rejected it, this sort of vapors of it have existed.

01:01:01.280 The 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.

01:01:14.100 And so everybody kind of agreed, like it's not a good idea to cheat on your spouse.

01:01:18.120 It's not a good idea to lie and to cheat and to steal and to murder and, you know, all these other concepts, right?

01:01:25.240 Like they all sort of agree on that. And as we've moved further and further away from it, though, it started to erode.

01:01:34.220 And now you're getting more and more people who say, why do we even have this?

01:01:38.640 In fact, they're going the opposite direction. They're saying, you know, the Bible is just written by a bunch of sexist men, right?

01:01:44.820 Like, you know, that they were homophobic and they were sexist and they and so we shouldn't listen to them. 0.99

01:01:49.820 And, you know, the Constitution that was written by a bunch of white guys who hated black people. 0.99

01:01:54.060 So 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. 0.93

01:02:05.080 I just don't really believe the theology aspect to it, too. I don't believe any of it now.

01:02:11.160 We should just burn the whole thing down and start all over again.

01:02:14.040 And the problem with that, of course, is the moment you go in that direction, you end up with absolute tyranny.

01:02:20.820 And that and that is not an opinion. That is just a historical analysis of every other country that's tried to do this.

01:02:27.600 Yep. 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.

01:02:32.820 There were lots of attempts to do that. And now there are new attempts to do that.

01:02:36.900 It's not, as you have argued so many times, not just straight up socialism and communism,

01:02:42.040 but actually in some way, these people at the WEF, they have realized that people do need a God.

01:02:48.540 They need something to control them. They need someone to tell them what to do or people will seek that anyway.

01:02:54.440 And so whereas communism and socialism, at least their premise is that while the people can rule themselves,

01:03:02.180 even though it's never actually worked out that way, I think that the oligarchs of the WEF realized, well, that doesn't work.

01:03:08.920 And so we can just not get rid of God, but replace him. And that is ultimately what this is all about.

01:03:15.020 And 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.

01:03:24.200 So 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.

01:03:32.040 But 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.

01:03:37.300 Sure. Then go to any place that books are sold, amazon.com, you know, Barnes and Noble, anywhere like that.

01:03:43.280 A dark future. That's my latest book with Glenn Beck. We've got another book we're working on.

01:03:47.500 I can't talk about it, but we've got another one. We're coming. That's going to come out probably before the election.

01:03:51.760 That's about propaganda and things like that. So that's going to be really exciting.

01:03:55.820 And of course, go to heartland.org to see all of the great things that we're doing at the Heartland Institute.

01:04:01.240 Thank you so much, Justin. As always, very impressed by just the amount of work that you and Glenn Beck do every year

01:04:07.120 in churning out these books. So helpful. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

01:04:12.240 Thanks, Sally.

01:04:13.280 Thanks, Sally.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - January 25, 2024

Ep 940 ｜ WEF vs. the West： The Latest in Davos’ Global Takeover ｜ Guest： Justin Haskins

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript