Best of the Program | 8/21/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Hi, it's Stu.

Welcome to the podcast.

Glenn Beck here as well.

Hi, Mr.

Beck.

Hi, I'm just adjusting my freeness.

You're going to learn what a freeness is in today's episode, and you're not going to like it.

I got to be honest with you.

There's a lot of things in this particular episode that are going to make you uncomfortable.

So put on your headphones and squirm in your seat.

A lot of stuff, though, you really like.

Yeah, we go into South Africa a little bit, what's going on there, which is terrifying.

We go into the new safe sex guide to learn about the...

I've got a strong stand on this.

I will not comply.

No, you will not.

You know, and you've got Chelsea Handler defending Al Franken, which is beautiful.

It's an amazing clip.

It's incredible.

It is.

We talk, go back in history a little bit, talking about,

we talked to the author of Freedom's Forge, a guy.

Extremely not about that book.

No, you went through.

We scheduled this interview months ago to talk about this book, and it's about how in world war ii you know capitalists came together really uh built the engine

built the you know built the engine to be able to defeat the nazis and then glenn scheduled this interview and then had the guy on for 45 minutes and barely talked about the book at all yeah we're gonna have to have him on again he is fascinating he is one of my favorite historians one of my favorite writers uh and we talked to him about churchill uh gandhi good guys or bad guys because you could look at both of them and see they were both racists so are they good guys or bad guys?

And I ask that because we're currently going through the debate now.

Is America good or bad?

I contend it's both.

It's both.

Now, which direction are we moving?

We talked to

Ephraim Meadows.

He's got a new book coming out in October.

We'll talk about The City of Death.

This is a guy that millions of people around the world have seen.

He was shot in a video where they were rescuing this little girl.

They were standing behind a tank, three guys,

and one of them runs out and rescues this little girl who is there under a blanket with her mother who had been dead for three days.

Pinned down by ISIS,

they grab her quickly, run behind the tank, and Ephraim is shot in the leg.

He's now joined our team for the Nazarene fun.

Amazing.

Amazing story.

And should you get an implantable chip?

It seems so convenient.

We'll get into that as well on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the blend back program.

Free housing, free college, free college tuition, single-payer health care, doubling the welfare state, and minimum wage.

Sound familiar?

This is the same platform of any Democratic socialist candidate here in the United States, whether it's Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez,

you know, and a whole fleet of new up-and-comers.

But the platform, as familiar as it may sound, is actually the same platform as the Economic Freedom Fighters, or EFF, in South Africa.

Now, this is a group of Marxist-Leninists who have now become the third largest political party in the country.

Their leader has brought the EFF into the spotlight by tapping into populism.

He fingered the white man as the answer answer to all of the problems, declaring at a rally back in January, Go After a White Man.

Let me play the audio for you.

But we're starting with this whiteness,

we are cutting the throat of whiteness.

He also, in that same speech started to

talk about,

you know, he just wants to know who these white people are.

He wants to know what religion they are.

He wants to know where they come from originally.

He wants to know how long they've been here.

And then they will cut the throats of whiteness.

Any of this sound familiar?

Because this is the kind of stuff that comes from democratic socialists, Marxists, Leninists.

It It always does.

You have to have class or race warfare.

This is why it's incredibly important that we do not

give in to our outrage, that we break our addiction to outrage.

Because if we don't, we will be led down this same path where the only answer is kill the other side.

The EFF's or EFF's numbers and popularity have grown so large now that they were actually able to force the African National Congress to begin seizing white-owned land, land owned by white farmers, and giving it to black South Africans.

The policy has now begun.

The new state law says that white farmers will be offered fair market value for their land by the government.

If they turn it down, the land will be seized anyway.

Fair market value for a land, uh, piece of land that they have just seized

included $1.37 million for a piece of land that is valued in the open market at $13.7 million.

It's only a tenth of what the farms are worth.

Obviously, a slap in the face.

After turning it down, they received this letter.

Notice is hereby given that a terrain inspection will be held on the farm at at 10 a.m.

in order to conduct an audit of the assets and a handover of the farm's keys to the state.

This farm is just the first of many.

This is exactly what happened with Lenin and Stalin.

What they do is they blame the rich farmers.

Then they kill or take the land away from the rich farmers.

Then they give those farms to the people.

The people don't have experience that the rich farmer has.

They were rich for a reason.

Then the country starves.

A report earlier this month showed that 139 white-owned farms have been targeted now for seizure.

So what happens if the farmers refuse to leave their land?

These are the moments right before catastrophe.

And it all began with a small group of Marxist and democratic socialists that were able to capture the national spotlight by harnessing hatred.

We don't have land redistribution here yet, but the rise of democratic socialism and Marxism in South Africa should sound uncomfortably familiar.

Look at what the New Left is doing and saying here in America.

They are categorizing each of us into groups and to identities and turning us one against the other.

Social class against social class, race against race, gender against gender.

Today's social justice is the undercover name for yesterday's bourgeoisie, proletariat, workers' revolution.

It is Marxism coming from the flank rather than straight ahead.

You'll never hear this from a democratic socialist, but heed this warning:

Marxism leads to violence every

time.

I ask you today

to pray for the people of South Africa, both white and black, the whites that will be killed, the blacks that will have to live with it for the rest of their lives, and the children that will have to grow up now in chaos and violence.

Pray for the people of South Africa, but also pray

that we don't actually go over this cliff

as we get precariously close to the edge.

With a full understanding

of there are many things that I believe that I shall never say, but I shall never say the things that I do not believe.

With the understanding of where the world is going

and how easily it is to remove voices now for quote-unquote hate speech.

I deliver this next

segment

with nothing but

respect for other people's viewpoints.

But in return,

I demand that they respect my viewpoint.

If we cannot come to a place to where we can say, well, we see the world radically differently,

but you're still my neighbor.

If we cannot come to that place,

the only thing left is to silence one another, and when that doesn't work, to shoot.

Remember, first,

you suggest, you nudge,

then you shove, then you shoot.

We are well in to the shove category.

I will shove your voice towards mine or out of the public square.

There is

new

guidelines on that

they want to teach our children about safe sex.

And as I read the guidelines,

I thought to myself two things.

One, the warning that I have told you over and over again from a woman named Paulina.

She was one of the people that saved the Jews in Poland.

She was about 90 when I met her.

She had lived with this secret on what she had done and how many Jews she had saved.

She started when she was about 16 years old in World War II.

And when I met her, she was...

She was old and gray, but still as shy and quiet.

She couldn't talk about it for a long time until the Iron Curtain came down, because that would have been wildly unpopular to be a Christian that saved Jews in the former Soviet Union.

So it wasn't until the 1990s that she could tell her story, or people could tell her story for her, as she was very shy.

I sat down with her with my family, and I asked her,

I believe the tree of righteousness is in all of us.

What do I do to water it?

She said to me, You misunderstand.

The righteous didn't suddenly become righteous.

They just refused to go over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

So as I read this today, I thought to myself,

This is the cliff.

This is one of them.

And I will not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity, come what may.

Here is the new LGBTQIA

Safe Sex Guide.

Historically, when sex education was introduced to the general public, content was focused on puberty education for cisgender people, heterosexual sex, pregnancy prevention, and a reduction of STIs.

During that time, there was a great deal of stigma and discrimination associated with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual.

Gender-inclusive terms such as non-binary and trans had yet to enter the mainstream language and culture.

This historic context and rampant homophobia and transphobia created a foundation where most sex education curricula didn't acknowledge the existence of LGBTQIA and non-binary individuals.

Sex programs were instead developed based on an assumption that those receiving the information were solely heterosexual and cisgender.

That's why

this safe sex guide is aimed at understanding the nuance, complex, and diverse gender identities, sexual orientation, attractions, and experiences that exist in the world, which vary across cultures and communities.

We need an LGBTQIA inclusive safer sex guide because traditional guides are often structured in ways that presume everyone's gender, female, male, non-binary, and trans.

No.

They

presume everyone's gender is the same as the sex that they were assigned at birth,

male, female, or intersex, or differences in sexual development hmm sex education resources often use videos and pictures and diagrams to portray important information though these images and videos have historically failed to reflect and provide information about same-sex and queer relationships these guides also often unnecessarily gender body parts as male parts or female parts and refer to sex with women or sex with men including those who identify as non-binary.

Many individuals don't see body parts as having a gender.

People have a gender.

As a result, the notion, excuse this, clinical language, as a result, the notion that a penis is exclusively a male body part and a vulva is exclusively a

female body part is inaccurate.

By using the word parts to talk about genitals and using medical terms for anatomy without attaching gender to it, we become much more able to effectively discuss safe sex in a way that is clear and inclusive.

For the purposes of this guide, we refer to the vagina as the front hole

instead of using the medical term.

This gender-inclusive language that's considerate of the fact that some trans people don't identify with the labels of the medical community.

No.

No.

No,

no,

no.

I am not teaching my children, nor will I ever comply, to removing the medical term and teach my children about sex using the words front whole.

I'm sorry.

No,

I

you want to do that?

That is fine.

But I will not comply.

When we first started having this conversation about homosexuality,

I am a libertarian.

I was never against gay gay marriage.

What I am against is forcing a church or a group of people to live within the standards

someone else sets.

So,

if you want to get married, go get married.

No skin off of my nose.

But do not come to my church and tell me what I must believe or do.

My faith is sacred to me, and it is just as much a part of me as anything else.

I cannot change what I believe and still be me.

Now it's interesting because remember, you're teaching that gender is what you believe, and you cannot change that.

Well, then, I would say, my religious philosophy is the same.

I wasn't born with it.

It's what I believe.

I will not tell you what to do, how to live, how to speak.

Do not tell me what to do, how to act, what to say, how to think.

You are not the boss of me, and I am not the boss of you.

I happen to believe that all men are created equal and we are endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Dare I say those rights that come from God, not from man.

And those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am not a hater for saying no.

No.

When we first started talking about acceptance of homosexuality,

the case was made, and I believe this,

that you're born this way.

Many people, I believe, are absolutely born

feeling differently.

I believe it.

There's no scientific proof of it, but I believe it.

I have, I've seen children.

Children are born with their own personalities and their own, I don't know, their own thing.

And no matter what, it's pretty hard to deny that natural thing that each of them come out with.

They all have their own personality and their own style and their own thing.

And every single homosexual person that I've ever known, loved, or just even met

would not choose that lifestyle.

Now that's changing.

But let's not get so arrogant that we forget how horrible it was for a long time to live in the shadows.

I know people who prayed every single day.

God, please remove this from me.

You are who you are, but so am I.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

I don't know if you heard Chelsea Handler.

But Chelsea Handler has...

I can almost always say no to a question like that.

Well, here's what she has said now about Al Franken.

You mentioned the Me Too movement.

When it comes to the Democratic Party, they have tried to purge, right, politicians who have faced allegations.

I know you were a supporter of Al Franken in the past, and he he hasn't ruled out running again, should he?

I love Al Franken.

So yes, I would love for Al Franken to run again.

Really?

Despite the fact that

there were like eight allegations.

But have women putting their arm?

I don't want to.

Stop, stop, stop.

No, they weren't about him putting his arm around.

It wasn't the picture.

It's what that woman said happened to her.

All during a comedy tour before that picture was taken.

That was the last insult.

Remember, he assaulted her backstage and forced himself on her and jammed his tongue down her throat.

Allegedly.

Allegedly.

But we have to believe the accuser, don't we?

Well, you know what?

No.

So there were eight people that said this about Al Franken.

All right, now go back to her.

Of women putting their arm, I don't want to diminish anyone's legitimate claim of feeling like they've been assaulted because that's your feeling.

But I think there is a very big difference of a man putting his arm around you.

He's a comedian.

I've touched people's breasts and genitals.

I can't imagine how many times in photos.

That's just

math doesn't excuse it, but it's something that's not a rape.

That's not sexual assault.

And it's not repeated behavior over and over again.

Okay.

So wait, so wait a minute.

So is she saying

because she's a comedian, comedian, because she's a celebrity, she can just grab people's genitals?

I don't know if she's not.

And she's saying you can do that, but she's saying she has done that.

She has done that.

So she's not necessarily giving advice, but she is bragging about how many

she may have grabbed in the past.

She is bragging about that, yes.

Okay, all right.

I'm just trying to, just.

Just trying to think if there's anything else that seems similar to that, but now that now

now it's totally okay.

And did you notice she also said, I don't want to dismiss anyone's legitimate claim.

Oh, legitimate.

Was that a legitimate rape?

I remember when that used to sink politicians, and we'd never hear from them ever again.

But she didn't say legitimate claim of assault.

She said legitimate claim.

of feeling as though you were assaulted.

Yes.

Because that's just feelings.

No, see, this is the problem with postmodernism.

As

Ben Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings.

It's a fact.

You were either assaulted or you were not assaulted.

You can feel that you were assaulted all you want,

but that's really a problem with you.

And I'm not going to delve into your sickness.

I am not going to verify and condone and coddle your illegitimate feelings of being assaulted if the assault didn't happen.

The same way we don't coddle someone who did assault someone who doesn't feel like they did anything wrong.

Correct.

It's about what happened, not about how they feel about it.

It's the facts, not the feeling.

And, you know, look, I think she's actually

right

in the aspect of there is a major difference between Chelsea Handler jokingly grabbing somebody in a photo and somebody who is actually assaulted, like from Harvey Weinstein.

There is a line there.

That doesn't mean that either one is a good idea, but there's clearly a difference.

Do you know anybody in your life?

I mean, we know comedians.

Do you know anybody in your life that can legitimately say, I can't even count the number of people I've grabbed by the genitals in a photograph?

I happened to be watching an office episode the other day, and in the office episode,

Dwight and Pam are trying to decipher whether Jim is attracted to the new office worker.

And

in this debate where they're trying to figure it out,

Dwight takes on the task of trying to assess after they're together.

I got it.

And he fakes falling down and he grabs for something.

And I mean, he grabs Jim's...

Yes.

You know, his freeness several times.

That's on a

TV show.

Right, I I know.

She's saying in photographs.

I can't.

Exactly.

Right.

So, my point, though, is that if it's a, you know, there's a,

there is a,

it would be ridiculous, obviously.

And, and if someone didn't want it to happen or didn't think it was funny, it would be obviously very bad.

Sure.

However, you know, I'm not, I, I wouldn't justify what she's doing there.

However, I can see, you know, she's known for sexual comedy.

I think guys, generally speaking, don't really care.

You know what I mean?

Like, Like,

I don't know that that's ever happened to me, but if it did, it wouldn't really bother me.

Like, you'd be like, hell, get off me, baby.

She said breasts.

Are genitals, are those exclusively male?

You cisgender white people.

I'm just saying that I'm trying to come up with a circumstance.

My point, however,

is more,

I guess, targeted at the idea that there is a difference, right?

There's no way, there's no story I can tell you in which a justified end of like, oh, and then he took off his bathrobe and forced her into the shower.

There's not a scenario.

So there is a difference, and we've pointed this out many times on the show, that there is a major difference between what Al Franken did and what Harvey Weinstein did.

And they shouldn't be lumped in the exact same thing.

The

photo part of it.

Yeah, the photo part.

The photo part with Al Franken is not the part that personally disturbs me.

It is what happened leading up to the photo.

Yeah.

And, you know, that's assault.

I I mean, there's been a wide range of this.

There's a spectrum.

We now understand kind of the idea of the spectrum

from, you know, different, you know, medical situations.

And there's a spectrum here.

That doesn't mean that any of it's good.

But I mean, when you're talking about like Louis C.K.

is much different than Harvey Weinstein.

You know, I think Glenn Thrush, who was the reporter, was much different than anything that we saw from

the worst of the worst.

And the idea that all of those are lumped in under this thing, thing, me too, is a problem, I think, that society has not figured out how to deal with yet.

And so there's an element there where you could say, okay, well, what she's saying has some, some merit.

However, Chelsea Handler is not a fair arbiter, and she's just offending this person because she likes him.

I think we all recognize that the reason she's coming up with these wonderful excuses on these things is because she likes Al Franken.

And if it was a conservative doing the exact same thing, she'd be on Twitter saying how horrible they were, and they were all mass rapists, and they should all go to prison.

And that's the problem.

Well, she may know Al Franken.

There's a difference.

I mean,

you know, I've had several conversations with Bill O'Reilly.

It's not that I know Bill O'Reilly.

I know other people as well, and I don't defend them.

You know, it's not that you know them or that I agree with their politics.

I think in the worst case scenario, it is.

Yeah, I mean, like, even, I mean, you talked about Roger Ailes many times, and I don't think I've heard you put up a defense of Roger.

Nope.

Even though you believe him very well.

Where, you know, Bill,

you've known fairly well as well over the years.

And, you know, again, when you are involved in a situation

where someone has been accused of something terrible, someone you know well,

you

should

insert your personal knowledge of that person into your analysis of the situation.

That does not mean they get a free pass for anything done.

That's dismissing facts.

Absolutely.

It's not my feelings that steer me and say, I don't believe that about Bill.

It's the fact that we've traveled with him and been around him for a long time and none of us ever saw anything like this, ever.

And can't even imagine it.

Doesn't mean it's not true, didn't happen, but I don't know that and I'm not going to judge him.

Exactly.

And everybody knows, I mean, you know, the office is a good example.

You know, Packer, who comes in all the the time and is like talking about how he's having sex with all these women on the road and he's always groping people and making inappropriate jokes.

Everybody knows a guy like that.

And if they got accused of something, you'd say, that does not surprise me.

That is Donald Trump.

Come on.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

My new book, Addicted to Outrage,

comes out here

the next couple of weeks.

September 18th is when it's available in stores.

I ask you to go to Amazon and pick up a copy.

It is not just a look at what's happening today.

Some of it is very, very funny.

Some of it is pretty terrifying.

It's a look at today, tomorrow, and our history.

And

it asks in the middle of it five important questions

that we have to ask ourselves as a nation.

If we want to save the Western society, is it worth saving?

Are we good or are we bad?

I use the example in the book of Winston Churchill.

I'm a huge Churchill fan.

But if you were from India, Churchill was a monster.

So, which is he?

Is he good or bad?

Arthur Herman is the author of Gandhi and Churchill, finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, but he's also the author of one of my favorite books, Freedom's Forge.

It came out a few years ago.

And I've wanted to have him on the show for quite some time, but he's here with us today.

Arthur, welcome to the program.

How are you?

I'm doing very well.

It's a pleasure to be on.

Hey, are you going to send me a copy of your new book?

Yes, I will.

If you'd send me a copy of

Freedom's Forge signed,

I would cherish it.

Delighted to do that.

Yeah.

Freedom's Forge, and we'll get into it a little while.

Freedom's Forge is just a tremendous, tremendous history book that I think everybody should have.

I appreciate that.

Let me go back to Churchill and Gandhi.

Sure.

If you are from

India, you see Gandhi completely different, not Gandhi, Churchill, completely differently than those in the West do.

Yeah, I think that's probably true, especially today.

I would say less so

during the wartime period

when you saw that there was a lot of respect, including by Gandhi, for Churchill for his defiant stand against the Nazis and his ability to really rally Britain, which a lot of Indians thought, hey, you know, Britain, it's on the decline, it's losing its credibility around the world, it's an imperialist power.

And they were, I think, quite shocked and surprised with the way in which Churchill was able to rally the British people and then basically rally the free world to fight against Nazism.

But you're right, today a lot of the focus is on Churchill, you know, as a white supremacist, as supposedly the guy who triggered the Great Bengal Famine during the course of the war in 1943, 44.

You didn't know about this.

You don't think so?

No, I don't think so at all.

I think what you come to realize is about the Great Bengal famine is it was a concatenation of

bad circumstances, the loss of Burma, which had been India's main source for

rice imports, and a lot of mishandling on the ground by the British bureaucracy.

The civil service bureaucracy basically failed to deal with the problem that for 30 years they had been assuring Indians they could deal with.

I mean, it's big government in action, Glenn, and they failed utterly until Churchill appointed Archibald Wavell

as viceroy, and he managed to turn the situation around with Churchill's encouragement.

So, you know, Churchill, if I may speak on this subject, you know, people talk about the similarities between Churchill and Donald Trump.

And I don't think sometimes that's a bit overblown.

But Churchill had his own version of tweets, which was his outbursts, especially in front of the War Council, in which he was he would denounce India for

bothering him about the food shipments and about the need to divert food supplies to India when they were needed

for the armed forces.

And he was capable of saying some quite shocking things.

And so just as people focus on Trump's Twitter feed and think that that's a clue to understanding his mind and his policies,

there's been a tendency to look at Churchill's kind of irritated outbursts.

He had a lot in his mind in 1943.

Yeah, a little little bit.

A little bit.

Yeah, a little bit.

And having to deal with a crisis far, far away

in a country which was already plunged into chaos because of civil disobedience

kind of strained his patience.

And so he said things, let off steam, that historians today, particularly certain Indian historians, capitalize on as a way to promote the idea that Churchill was somehow either responsible for or even the architect of the Great Bengal famine.

It was a terrible famine.

One and a half million people died.

But

Churchill's responsibility for this shrinks away when you look at what the real situation was and understand it in the course of

the history of India under British rule.

Talking to one of my favorite authors and historians, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, Arthur Herman,

author of Freedom's Forge, also Gandhi and Churchill, Wouldn't you say that all great men

are both

good and bad when you look back through the eyes of today's history, that there is no perfect man?

Gandhi was a racist as well.

He didn't see the plight of the

Africans,

which was very similar to his own in India.

He didn't want to be seated on the same train car

an African.

Yes, or as the derogatory term of the day,

the equivalent of N-word for us, kaffirs.

And Gandhi was fairly contemptuous of the

blacks in South Africa.

But that doesn't

explain in the book.

And it explained in the book,

he began his civil disobedience campaigns in South Africa

to call attention to the plight of Indians living there who he believed, I think correctly, should be treated with the same rights as any other British subjects.

But his big complaint was that they had been relegated on the other side of the color line away from white

inhabitants and

citizens in South Africa, but then relegated to the same side as

South Africa's blacks.

He wanted Indians pushed to the correct side, the upper side.

Right.

With nothing to say about the blacks.

Very little to say about that.

It was not his concern.

And it was not an issue that

really motivated his multiple visits

with the British with regard to the Indian presence in Africa generally.

He was a nationalist.

I mean, and this is one of the things that I think both he and as I explained in the book, both he and Churchill were both very strong nationalists.

And Gandhi has come to be given a kind of this universalist globalist kind of agenda because of his pacifism and his belief in passive resistance but he was an Indian nationalist from beginning to end and that's what drove him and and that's what that that was his legacy so do you walk away feeling the same way about Gandhi and Churchill that

you could just concentrate what I'm driving towards is we're we're asking now if America is a good place or a bad place it's both it's both it's it's what are we, are we getting better or are we getting worse?

I think we're getting better in the long term.

We're getting much better as a people.

But we've done horrible things.

We've done really amazing, great things.

We're neither bad nor good.

We're both.

And that's what a proper study of history should bring, Glenn, and also of the study of historical figures.

I think you're absolutely on the mark here.

And you know what?

I've written about,

look at my record of biographies, the Gandhian Churchill book, my book on Douglas MacArthur, reaching back almost 20 years, my book on Joseph McCarthy.

You know, I did a book on McCarthy, and what I explained in there was that, yeah, there was a lot of bad about McCarthy.

There was a lot of good, too.

He was onto a real issue, namely the communist conspiracy to subvert the U.S.

government

and the way in which it had infiltrated into the federal government in the 1930s and 1940s.

But people were outraged because, in many cases, people want,

of

saints and villains.

Yeah.

And it's really hard to do.

It's really hard with a handful of characters in history, and I think you know who they are, it's really hard to find ones in democratic Western societies

who fit either one of those builds.

So

let me break here, and then I want to pick it up because I think McCarthy is a really great example.

I first started reading about McCarthy

and realizing, wait a minute, wait a minute, he's not this

black-cloaked Darth Vader, you know, villain

every step of the way.

He really did have some things right.

But if we can't recognize that nuance, because we're now in a society where you're either 100% in the boat or on the train, or you're 100% off the train, and that's not where a healthy society should be.

Can you you draw parallels between today

and

the Red Scare?

Are we facing a new form of

McCarthyism, except it's now the hunt for those who will not abide with postmodernism?

Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to that.

And what we come to realize is when you really study the history of

intellectuals, right, and that'd be an interesting book, wouldn't it?

Sort of intellectuals through history, particularly in the modern age.

And what you come to realize is that

contrary to

their own self-image, they don't tend to be really supporters of liberty and freedom.

You look at the role that,

for example, German academics played during the Nazi period when they basically closed ranks with the government, expelled

their Jewish colleagues, and signed petitions lining up in support of the Third Reich.

During the 1930s, you had a similar groupthink on the far left, supporting communist and fellow traveler organizations signing petitions, which got them into trouble in the 1950s.

And then in the 1950s, when there were attacks on

dissent and

scrutiny from government about the curricula that was being used in classes in sociology and in the

social sciences generally and literature.

The universities, with a few exceptions, basically went along with the attacks when Bertrand Russell, for example, the British philosopher,

was denied

entry into the country because of his atheism.

There were some academics who stood up for his right to speak, even if they disagreed, like Sidney Hook and there were others who did not many others who didn't and I think what we're seeing right now is that the radicalization the long march through the institutions remember that line from the 1960s has really come into its own in the American Academy in the humanities in the liberal arts and in the social sciences and what they've done is to create a kind of I'm going to use this term intellectual gulag in the sense that if you don't adhere to the the party line, if you are even

waver from it or express doubt about

the wisdom of having such a party line, then punishment is meted out to you, not beatings and attacks, unless, of course, you're Charles Murray,

but with being silenced and being denied tenure and coming under attack.

The difference, of course, Glenn, and the irony is that this is all being done not as a result of government pressure being put to bear on the institutions, as was the case you know with the universities in nazi germany or universities during the so-called red scare this is pressure coming from within from administrators and radicals if you look at if you look if you look at nazi germany though a lot of that was internal pressure as well not just from the government i mean especially when it comes to science the uh you know the doctors and the nurses were fresh that's right which i've written about as you now written about in my idea of decline book about the info influ the influence of race science and eugenics, all done, of course, in the interest of progressive

progress

and progressive ideologies, including socialism, but with horrendous effects later on.

So let's talk a little bit about

the cycle of American history.

And

where do you think we are, Arthur?

Have we been here before?

And

do we survive?

Okay, that's right.

Put your historian on the spot and make him pull out his crystal ball.

That's right.

Well, I will tell you, I with you, I'm like you, I share a great optimism about where the American experiment is headed long term.

I think we're in a very unhealthy place right now.

But these have happened in American history.

You know,

we had a...

had a moment like this in 1860.

By the way, that is not to say that I I think we're on the verge of a 1860, 1861 type of

national catastrophe.

But I think that the

aspect of division that's taken place here, a division which really is going to be very difficult for us to resolve with kind of the normal

politics and the way in which these issues have been resolved in the past.

You know, we had terrible divisions during the McCarthy period.

You know, people were routinely accusing Truman and his band of advisors of being traitors, of being basically the tools of Moscow.

We had terrible divisions.

You remember them in 1968, you know.

I was a kid.

I was thoroughly radicalized, tried to convince my parents that I needed to go to the Chicago Convention.

They said, you're 11 years old.

I don't think you're going to go to the Chicago Convention on your own.

But I watched, you know, I watched the convention, watched the riots, the coverage, the riots of the media there.

Abraham Rybakov telling,

Richard Daly that his police were using Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago.

I saw all that live.

But there was a

we hadn't lost the entire university system.

We hadn't had our children indoctrinated into

this postmodernist stuff that is absolute poison.

It is.

And I think also we didn't have the kind of social media.

Everybody trashes social media.

I think social media, in the end, has been a tremendous benefit, and I think it will be a very powerful and constructive tool.

But

what has happened in the short term, and this is what happened with the printing press, you know, in the 16th century, is that it's become a means by which every kook and every

angry person now is able to express themselves in more and more violent and more and more extreme terms.

And I think what we've reached is a kind of cycle of verbal violence in our media, not just the social media, but the mainstream media.

Turn on CNN and look and see what happens there or MSNBC.

And I think we have a president right now who, unlike other politicians,

doesn't try to avoid conflict

and, you know, and veers towards compromise at every turn.

He seeks out conflict.

And I think that's one of the reasons why he was sent to Washington by the voters, was that they said, look,

you're going to be be our bull in the china shop because

there's a lot of crockery there that badly needs breaking.

And

we're watching the breakage and the reaction of those whose livelihoods, whose careers, whose world views were built on that old,

decaying Washington establishment.

And I think there's going to be a fight to the finish here, Glad.

Welcome, Pat Gray.

How are you, sir?

Awesome.

I'm perfect.

You?

I mean, see what I'm saying?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just like, wow.

Yeah.

So, so, Pat, you're concerned today about

I

We've been talking about this for a long time, at least 15, close to 20 years, probably, embedding chips into

people's foreheads or into their hand.

Definitely not Digital Angel.

Definitely not.

The Mark of the Beast.

The Mark of the Beast is angels.

It's not.

No.

No.

I mean, it sounds like it.

Yeah.

I mean, yes.

It's exactly, it's exactly what St.

Paul described in the cave.

But it's nothing.

It's not.

Because people love it.

They love it.

Right.

They're not being forced into this.

They're doing it willingly.

Right.

There's a company.

Well, in China, they're being forced into this.

In China, yes.

And well, a little closer to home, like Wisconsin.

They're doing it there as well.

Right.

No surprise in Wisconsin, the progressive state.

A company called Three Square Market

has 250 employees, and so far, 80 of them have voluntarily received the chip.

It's super, super convenient.

Oh, it is.

It's super convenient.

Yeah,

all the doors unlock for you.

Right.

You just swipe your hand over the scanner, door opens.

Yeah, you come to your computer and it automatically puts in your passcode and everything else.

It's great.

You can go to the company's market and just swipe your hand and buy stuff that comes directly out of your account.

Fantastic.

It's great.

It's really good.

I mean, everybody loves it.

And

I'm sure there's never going to be a time when that could go radically, radically wrong.

Like, what do you mean?

Well, all they're doing is storing all of your information

and your medical information, your financial information, and

just to have that implanted in your skin,

I just think it's nothing could go wrong there.

We all know that the government will always be benign.

All right, so here's always

work with these companies to gain our information.

Right, right.

Okay, so here's the thing.

The only trouble I could see, besides this crazy talk that that's, you know, the beginnings of the mark of the beast, is

you could cut that out.

So if somebody wanted to steal your information, you could cut it out.

You need to have it, you need to find a way so it fuses with the body.

So once you have the mark of the, once you have the chip,

it can never be removed.

And digital agent, don't they have that

method?

I think they're not sure.

We haven't talked about this for a while, but I remember that it ran off your body's biorhythm.

You remember that?

And they were concerned that somebody might extract it.

And they said it wouldn't work because because it becomes part of your body.

It's good.

So it wouldn't work for anybody else.

So

all they have to do to track you is put one of these inside of you.

But you're not doing anything wrong.

Why would you worry about it?

Well, that's what the Chinese are saying now.

I mean, the Chinese are getting it.

And China is saying, you know, the Chinese people who, by the way,

lose social points.

I don't know if you ever saw a Black Mirror, but you know, China is doing what the Black Mirror

made, you know, light of in some ways.

They brought to kind of the

Twilight Zone of this generation is Black Mirror.

And it showed that, you know, you'll get social scores, and depending on who you talk to, how you treat others, if you break any laws, if you, you know, are pedestrian and you're not using the sidewalk, you lose points.

And that depends on what you can access.

Look, it's a science fiction show.

Well, except it's supposed to warn them of some dark thing that could happen in the future.

Yeah, except it's happening.

It's not going to happen.

No, it's happening now in massive communities.

The first trials started in 2016, and it'll be fully implemented by 2020 in China.

And the people there...

Again, they lose points if they talk to foreign press and say something that's not good.

But they're all talking to the foreign press, and they all love it.

They love it.

They love it.

They love it too?

Yeah, they love it.

They didn't do anything wrong.

Why wouldn't they love it?

They say, now traffic is perfect.

Nobody speeds.

Nobody does anything.

Wow.

It's wonderful.

They love it.

By the way, this is completely unrelated.

I want to make sure you guys know it's completely unrelated, but sometimes we bring up unrelated stories in the middle of the broadcast.

That's what we do.

We're covering

a lot of different topics.

Facebook has begun to assign its users a reputation score, predicting their trustworthiness on a scale from zero to one.

Wait, that's exactly the Chinese plan.

No, this isn't in China.

This is in this issue.

Oh, this is

totally different.

Okay, so it's in English.

Yeah, it's in English.

And it's in America.

It's totally different then.

You're right.

Previously, unreported rating system, which Facebook has developed over the past year, shows that the fight against the gaming of tech systems has evolved to include measuring the credibility of users to help identify malicious actors.

I'm sure we're really

a problem at all.

No, no, no, no, no.

It's all going to make our life better.

It's all going to make our life more convenient.

It's all going to be easier.

I mean, all you have to do is comply.

One of their software engineers, Sam, says, I use it 10 to 15 times a day.

Oh, wow.

I love it.

Sam likes it.

If Sam likes it, I feel like that's enough.

Sam, I am.

Yeah, right now.

You know what I mean?

Right.

Wasn't he the green eggs and ham?

Yeah, he won't try it with a box in a fox or something like that.

That's probably what happened here, right?

Like, he wasn't going to try the digital implant, but then he decided to try it and he liked it.

His friend said,

Sam, try it.

Try it.

Try it, I say.

Comrade, you're going to love it.

You like it.

So I think it'll be good.

I think it's all.

So we've we've just become such sheep.

It's just

following each other.

What are you talking about?

But it's so good.

It is so good.

I mean, it's really convenient.

Everybody loves convenience.

It is.

I mean, all of these things.

You know, Glenn, we've done the show now for 20 years together.

And Pat, you know, you were working with Glenn before that.

And we've worked together for a really long time as well.

And we've talked about these developments over the years long enough now to be on record saying things that we do every day.

We're incredibly creepy.

Like, you could go back and listen to those shows from 10, 15 years ago, and we would say, look what they're developing.

This is insane.

No one will ever do this.

And we're doing it right now.

I mean, we're carrying around multiple GPS devices everywhere we go.

Yeah.

I mean, the things that we do, it happens so fast because it's so useful and so great.

And that part,

the part that we're already, we're already doing it makes it easier to go ahead and implant it in your skin because you've already got trackers anyway.

You got a GPS system in your phone, in your car.

They can find you anywhere.

So don't worry about it.

Just put this in as well.

And then we'll find you when you're even not in your car or with your phone.

Wait until they start to.

This is why

I don't know if we left this part in.

Did we leave the part in the book?

Stu, you've read it.

Did we leave the part in the book where I talked about

the merging of man and machine?

Where...

There's definitely stuff in there about that.

Yeah, yeah.

You know, when we first www.

Yeah, when we get to the point to where transhumanism,

where

they say, look,

you got to upgrade.

You got to upgrade.

You got to upgrade your memory.

Because if you don't upgrade your memory, you're not going to be able to stand a chance.

You can't keep behind.

You won't be, yeah, you'll be left behind.

Your kids will have no chance.

There's nothing.

Look at, look at, we're sending our kids.

Everybody will.

We're sending our kids to college right now, knowing, knowing it is the source of most of our problems.

And we are paying

colleges and universities to destroy our kids and our country.

We're paying them.

We're enslaving our children to massive debt when we know it's not worth it.

We know that

it's

the ill effects and how they are coming out programmed differently.

And we're doing it.

You think we're not going to put chips?

I bet we will eventually.

Of course we will.

I mean, of course we will do it within, we'll begin doing it within 10 years.

We did shows about the cashless society.

How many times have we used that phrase?

And it's been obviously, there are clear warnings about this.

I have had, we talked about this yesterday, I've had $4 in my wallet for a month.

The same $4 living in my wallet for one month.

Not more than $4, just $4.

I'm doing lots of stuff.

I'm buying lots of stuff.

But I have $4 in my wallet and the same $4 constantly live there.

I have $20 folded in my wallet.

That's it.

And I've had it folded in my wallet for maybe 10 years.

I mean, I don't even know the last time you used cash.

You don't use cash.

We're in a cashless society.

We basically are, right?

And that stuff happens.

You don't even, because it's so much easier.

I don't want to get through.

Change.

What do I have to do with a change?

We always hear not even serious concerns.

We always thought this was going to be forced on us and it was going to be presented as if it were, you know, something sinister.

Well, no, it's going to be presented as if it will change your life.

It's going to help you.

It's going to save your life.

It'll save your kids.

Because if anybody ever kidnaps them, if they have this little chip in them, we'll be able to find them wherever they are.

Nobody can condemn your kids.

But isn't that the way?

Isn't that the way evil always wins?

I mean, look at this.

You're going to college.

Well, it's good.

Your kids have to be educated.

They're going to have all these great opportunities.

Well, no, it's enslaving them to debt.

A lot of research shows that this is really changing our kids fundamentally.

It's their stated goal to change our kids and make them less like the parent.

And And we do it anyway.

Look at all of the things that we do right now that we know are bad.

We talked about this a while ago of the 1984 versus Brave New World.

Which one are we going down the road of?

Both.

Maybe both, but Brave New World seems more likely to me.

Brave New World, I think, is, I think everybody is declaring Brave New World, and even I did.

Brave New World is the winner.

Yeah, I think it's more likely, but I don't know if it's the winner.

Dr.

Huxtable was right.

No,

isn't that who wrote it?

Yeah, I think it's Dr.

Huxtable.

No, I don't think

Clifford did that.

He was more the medical doctor.

Yeah, I don't think he used Clifford.

So anyway,

Brave New World is

the way that we are headed.

But there comes a point to where I think, and we're there.

We are there.

We're at this tipping point where people are like, I don't.

I don't want to go forward with this because you guys are scaring me.

You're seeing this with the Democratic Democratic Socialists and everything else.

They don't want to go there, but they also don't want to necessarily go back.

And so they don't know what to do.

That's the point where the New World Order and 1984 come in.

Brave New World can take you up to the precipice.

And then I believe it takes somebody to strongarm an event.

And if that doesn't work, they strongarm you into it and say, you're doing it.

Because really, I've asked this over and over again.

And

we need to start asking people who are yelling at us, and we're talking and yelling at on Twitter.

We need to ask ourselves and others: let's say you get your way and you win all the elections, what's going to happen to the 50% of the country that doesn't agree with you?

What are you going to do with them?

Well, the weather underground had that all figured out.

Yes, they're going to do some re-education camps.

That's what China is doing.

So that's what China is doing.

Yep.

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

Demand