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

Episode Date: January 25, 2024

Today we're joined by our friend Justin Haskins, author and director of the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland Institute, to discuss what the world's elites got up to at Davos 2024 and just how concerned we need to be about it. First we look at the World Economic Forum's definition of "misinformation," which was the theme of the meeting. We look at why the WEF invited a select few from the Right, such as Argentinian President Javier Milei and Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, when they knew these people would directly challenge the Davos initiative. The answer is rather nefarious. We explain what the World Economic Forum's strategy is to combat so-called "misinformation" and why we should be paying attention to state-level government. We touch on what Texas Governor Greg Abbott is doing at the Texas border and what the future might hold when it comes to states' rights. We also discuss the dangers of the World Economic Forum's view of artificial intelligence and why we must agree on the foundation upon which we are going to build our country back up. You can get Glenn and Justin's book, "Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset's Terrifying Next Phase," here: https://bit.ly/3Dh7tnz --- Timecodes: (01:14) Theme of Davos / "misinformation" (09:20) Inviting people on the Right to Davos (20:02) WEF strategies to combat "misinformation" / attacks on banking (39:00) Texas border (47:50) AI (51:35) Human rights & foundational beliefs --- Today's Sponsors: Magic Spoon — get your next delicious bowl of high-protein cereal at magicspoon.com/RELATABLE! Be sure to use promo code RELATABLE at checkout to save five dollars off your order! My Patriot Supply — prepare yourself for anything with long-term emergency food storage. Get your new, lower-price 4-Week Emergency Food Kit at PrepareWithAllie.com. --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 938 | Border Standoff: Texas vs. Biden | Guest: Jason Buttrill https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-938-border-standoff-texas-vs-biden-guest-jason-buttrill/id1359249098?i=1000642688945 Ep 842 | The Elites’ Plan to Replace God With AI | Guest: Justin Haskins (Part Two) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-842-the-elites-plan-to-replace-god-with-ai-guest/id1359249098?i=1000621802685 Ep 841 | Great Reset Update: The Next Phase Is Here | Guest: Justin Haskins (Part One) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-841-great-reset-update-the-next-phase-is-here/id1359249098?i=1000621675813 Ep 744 | Great Reset Update: GAEA, Boiling Oceans, & Extraterrestrial Superheroes | Guest: Justin Haskins https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-744-great-reset-update-gaea-boiling-oceans-extraterrestrial/id1359249098?i=1000596385466 Ep 344 | The Great Reset: Everything You Need to Know | Guest: Justin Haskins https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-344-the-great-reset-everything-you-need-to-know/id1359249098?i=1000503876255 Ep 837 | The Pfizer-Biden Push For Puberty Blockers | Guest: Spencer Lindquist https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-837-bombshell-report-bidens-using-tax-dollars-to/id1359249098?i=1000620940340 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. The world's elite gathered this week at Davos to talk about how they can make sure that we don't talk to make sure that we don't say things that they disagree with. We've got Justin Haskins here. He is an expert on all things, World Economic Forum. He is going to detail their plans to curb so-called disinformation and misinformation.

We're going to be talking about that. And a lot more, as always, this is kind of an overwhelming conversation, but we've got strategies as well to encourage you to employ to protect ourselves from the predation of these global institutions. So without further ado, here is our friend Justin Haskins. Okay, Justin, thank you so much for joining us. again, you have the privilege of getting to be the person on our show that tells us all of the scary things that are happening and all of the frightening subjects that the elites that try to control us are talking about at Davos. So let's start with an overview. What was the theme of Davos this year? Yeah, so the theme this year for Davos, we've seen all kinds of different

themes in the past. But this year, it was misinformation and disinformation. Building trust was one way that they framed it. But this kind of mirrors their recent global risks report that they put out. They put this out every single year where they interview a bunch of experts and they say, what are the biggest problems facing the world? What are the biggest risks over the next two years and over the next 10 years? And the number one answer that they got in that report became their topic, their chief topic for this conference, misinformation and disinformation. That was that was much, much higher in the survey by the way than a global conflict, like armed conflict, which is incredible because there's two massive wars going on right now in the world. So you would

think that would be, you know, number one or two at least, but it wasn't. It was like five, I think, on the list. So that was the main topic at Davos. They had thousands of people go to Davos every single year. They had 200 panels at Davos this year, 200 panels. And so we had a team of like three or four people just watching panels nonstop. And we couldn't even get through all the panels. But this topic of misinformation, disinformation, that was the main thing. It kept coming up over and over and over again, one influential leader after another discussing it. And I think that there's a really important reason for why that's their focus. Over the past few years, years, they've had these big, gigantic grand plans rolled out at Davos. We've had great reset. We've had

Davos Manifesto. We've had big elaborate talks about, you know, European New Deal, Green New Deal and a green New Deal in America and all of this stuff. And all those things have fallen flat on their face. The trust in Davos has, is at an all-time low. And it was never super high. But now it's really low. People don't like elites at all. All those things have backfired. And of course, instead of looking in the mirror and saying, well, maybe we should change the way that we handle things. Maybe people don't want to be controlled by a global elite at Davos, you know, full of millionaires and billionaires and giant corporation. Maybe they don't want that. 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. and if we could just control that problem and shut people up,

then maybe we could actually get some stuff done. And this came out in a lot of different ways throughout the conference, but that to me was the biggest takeaway for this year. Okay, so let's define those terms. How are they defining misinformation and disinformation? Yeah, well, basically it's a deliberate attempt to spread information that is knowingly false. Okay, so the people saying it

are deliberately saying things they know are not true and so they're lying about these big sort of elaborate policies, plans, global risks, etc. That's how they would define it in a broad sense. 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. 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. Anybody who says things like that, those would be examples of misinformation and disinformation. So if you disagree with them, that's misinformation and disinformation. And that's always, I've yet to see a situation where they haven't labeled, you know, where they,

taken something that someone like me has said and said, you know what? Yeah, we don't agree with that, but that isn't misinformation or disinformation. They always label it that way. That's how they always label it. So it really is just any sort of disagreement that you have with the establishment elites. Okay. So this is what, this is how they described it. And it uses the euphemisms that you were saying that they used. The 54th annual meeting of the world economic force. Forum will provide a crucial space to focus on the fundamental principles of driving trust, including transparency, consistency, and accountability. But what it sounds like you're saying is that they actually mean the opposite of those things.

The people in charge, at least the people that Davos or the World Economic Forum agrees with, they're not being held accountable. They don't have to be consistent in their principles. They don't have to be transparent in why they're doing what they're doing. 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. There's been no accountability, no consistency, no transparency for him. That's what we see with all of these leaders.

I mean, there is no greater example, I think, of war is peace, freedom and slavery, as we see in 1984, then we do, then we see right here that we're we see in their motto. And this is just being true year after year, right? Saying things and actually meaning the opposite of what they say. Yeah. Well, I mean, think about the irony of this. You have them hosting a conference full of elites that regular people can't go to. Right. 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. So, I mean, it's, it's a lot of, you know, It's ludicrous. And that's how they've always presented it.

They love to talk about how the stakeholders, which is just everybody, you and I, we're stakeholders. You know, we get input in all of this. But we're not invited to Davos. It's not like you and I get to go sit on the panels and give our two cents about their plans. So, yeah, it's just what they tell people because they don't want to be honest. The honest, the way they really feel about the world is that most people are stupid

cheap and that they need to lead the stupid sheep to the right package. That's how they, that's how they view the world. I have no doubt about it whatsoever. And the misinformation, disinformation problem is some of the stupid sheep in the fold are, they're not, they're not falling in line. And they're convincing other sheep to go the wrong direction too. And that's a huge problem. We got to get these unruly sheep back in order. That's what, that's what this is all about. Gotcha. So misinformation and disinformation, what they mean by that, as you said, is opinions, perspectives, facts that don't align with their narratives, whether it's on climate change, whether it's on gender ideology, whether it's on economics, whatever it is.

If there are subversive or oppositional voices to their approved of narratives, that's what they qualify. That's what they count as misinformation or disinformation. 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 narrative. So it's for your own good that you can no longer have what they would call this privilege of free speech. 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, One of them was Javier Malay from Argentina. He is their new populist free market conservative president. And here is telling the people at Davos to deny the state. Do not surrender to the advance of the state.

The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself. You are the true protagonists of this story. And rest assured that as from today, Argentina is your staunch, unconditional R.A. Thank you very much and long-lived freedom. Damn it. 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. And he also says, I'm here to tell you that the Western world is in danger. 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. the main leaders of the Western world, he said, have abandoned the model of freedom for different versions of what we call collectivism. We're here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world. Rather, they are the root cause. I can't even imagine what kind of connoption George Soros was having. If he heard those words, or Klaus Schwab or any of those people, I know that you've argued that these people aren't communists, but they do push a form of collectivism on. under their oligarchy, under their authority.

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 this. So tell me your assessment. Yeah, it's actually a really genius move when you think about it. So if the theme is building trust, we have to rebuild trust. We got to get people who think that we're this terrible organization that's trying to manipulate and control things,

I really believe they are. It's really a collection of organizations and people and corporations and stuff trying to do that. But I really do think that's what they're doing. 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. There was no way that they fought that somebody like Javier Malay or Kevin Roberts from the Heritage Foundation, who also was on a pan. There's no way that they thought those people were going to get there saying glowing things about

the World Economic Forum. I mean, there's just no way they thought that. So you put them up on stage. 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. And that's fine because 99% of the rest of the agenda is giving a completely different picture of things. And there was another speech, which I think is, which has gotten no attention. And again, this is sort of the genius of it, right? Yeah. There was another speech giving by the head of the United Nations, okay, which nobody has paid any attention to it all. In the introduction to the speech, there was the president of the World Economic Forum, a guy

named Borge Brenday, got up there and introduced him by saying, in part, we're really excited about this big annual United Nations meeting of the heads of state that's coming up in September, and we're all in. We're all behind you. 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, who's one of the most radical people you'll ever find in the entire world. It's part of this our common agenda plan that the UN is pushing behind the scenes. There's going to be a meeting in September. The heads of state are going to go to it, similar to like the Paris Climate Accord agreements

and things like that. And out of that, they've already decided there's going to be an agreement called Pact for the future. They already have a name for it and everything. The details of what's going to be in it are being finalized right now. They have policy papers on the UN website. 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. It's all posted on their website. 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. 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. And do any, does any of that get headlines? No. What gets headlines is Javier Malay standing up there saying, you guys are all, you know, garbage, basically, and this is terrible. And Kevin Roberts saying some critical things about them, when in reality, 99% of the people in the room aren't going to, they don't care what Kevin Roberts says and they don't care what Javier Malay says.

They care what the head of the United Nations says. And that's the whole point of these meetings. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Alley, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day

and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

So you've brought up Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, which I'm very thankful for his leadership. 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. And here's what he said or part of what he said. To regain trust, Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits, and natural rights of nations, families, and individuals to govern themselves. The World Economic Forum needs to hear that message. She talks about the dangers of Marxism and the dangers of collectivist governments around the world.

He says, they use their power to disempower us and their cultural influence to smear anyone who questions their self-serving corruption. Unchecked, centralized power leads to tyranny and the disasters compound the farther the power drifts or is untethered from the people to regain trust. Then Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits. And, okay, I already said that. The natural rights of individual nations to govern themselves. What we need is nothing more than the freedom to govern our. ourselves. And so he wrote that and he also said a lot of that when he was speaking on a panel at Davos. And now the Wall Street Journal, they have a headline titled this and maybe you think

this is just misdirected attention. But they said Davos turns gently right. And then they talk about some of the people that we just noted. And they argue that maybe they're trying to preempt some backlash, kind of what you argued, 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, but maybe they can stave off a revolution against the W.E.F and the UN in those elites by just giving them a little bit, just giving them a little air, and by just saying, well, look, no, we're fair. We're looking at both sides of this. This is not really about power. 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.

Is that what you think? Yeah. And this is something that's been happening for a long time, actually. It's not, this is not a new strategy. I mean, if I remember correctly, and I think I think I do, Donald Trump has spoken there before. Greg Abbott has been there before. Dan Crenshaw has been there before. there have been many people who have been there before that you wouldn't classify as as sort of

a Davos elite. It's not as though this is the first time that they've invited people who disagree with them. They often do that because they want people at the conference who are, you know, your sort of token individual liberty person. So no one can say, well, you guys are all just one single mind here. No, no, no. We're a forum and we have all sorts of different viewpoints. Well, Yeah, technically you do, but 99% of the speakers all agree. They're all moving in one direction. They're all going with the same game plan. 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. That's fine as long as at the end of the day, you get what you want. And that's really,

so I think, again, building trust. How do you build trust? You got to convince people you're not as far. are to the left as you say you are, or as it appears that you are, that people say you are. And that's exactly what they try to do by putting these token conservative libertarian types up on the stage. I don't think it means anything at all other than it's just a marketing play. And I think it worked pretty well. Right. Yeah, I think so too, especially if you have the Wall Street Journal saying, oh, they're turning right. They're steering to the right because they are making it seem like, oh, wow, this is the very first time that the W. W.E.F. has ever platformed someone from the conservative side. And as you just pointed out, that's not true. That's an

appeasement strategy so they can have covered to continue doing what they want to do. And as you've already mentioned, what they want to do is rein in what they call misinformation and disinformation, aka any disagreement with the regime. So tell me about some of the strategies that they suggested to rein in this so-called disinformation. 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. Like, this is the idea. It's government and private corporations working hand-in-hand to accomplish some sort of greater purpose. 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 moat, 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. So they work hand in hand all the time. They have all kinds of special projects with each other, especially on technology and social media and the internet and all of that. And the idea is we got to get all of these people in the private sector moving in the same direction as government officials on free speech. 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.

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. And so if they're going to control speech, they have to get the private sector doing the dirty work for them. This is the whole concept of the Great Reset. How do we transform societies? 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. 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. So that idea was the idea that was floated over and over and over again. But there were also hints and just hints of it. 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. At our common agenda, there is a component of that packed for the future that's proposed right now. And it could be scrapped from it by the time they

actually sign the agreement. 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. And so that's actual, that's government. That would be government silencing speech on an international level. And so there were hints that that was alluded to in this conference as well. And that's really more, that's more hard authoritarianism, not just this public-private partnership stuff. But I think that if the World Economic Forum had it its way, you wouldn't need to have that. You could just have the private sector doing what they consider to be the right thing. Just silence all the people who are not going. going along with the standard talking points. And that's good enough. But in the event that that doesn't work out, they have a backup plan. 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. And I think that that's kind of always lingering in the background of all these conferences. Right. This is according to the Blaze, there was the panel. And one of the, there was the panel on defending troops. And one of the panelists was Jean Bergolt, the president CEO of Internews, and they talk about making these exclusion lists that are then defunded somehow for sharing so-called disinformation. He explained that one of the most effective ways to keep people from being exposed to so-called inaccurate information. So we are the victims.

These stakeholders are the victims of this disinformation and these guardians of our galaxy are just trying to help us. 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. So this is a concerted effort. Like there are already companies that do this. There are left-wing companies that try to target advertisers of shows like this one or conservative advertisers and try to scare them into pulling their advertising dollars. away from a show that's happened to Glenn Beck. It's happened to a lot of conservative commentators. 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.

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. And that's pretty scary. Yeah, it is. And this is what the Great Reset is all about. 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. 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. We can actually just destroy everyone. We don't even. We don't even. necessarily need to pass a law to stop someone from speaking, we can just make it impossible for them to have a business. And if we can just destroy them that way, then it solves, it serves that same purpose that we had in the past. Governments used to have to throw people in gulags. 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. And all of a sudden,

And it's like, well, they're going to be gone anyway. We're going to move them out of the way. 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. One, where they have a responsibility to ensure that society has more trust in institutions. they use this kind of language. And really what it means is exactly what you were just alluding to. We have to make sure that the money dries up for the people that we don't agree with.

If the money dry and the best way to do that is through the financial institutions. 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. Everyone's going to have to do what we want them to do. And there's actually this, and again, this kind of what I was saying before about this plan for in the future, this Our Common Agenda, there's this global misinformation board idea that they're dreaming up at the United Nations in a very similar way to that on the topic we're discussing now. There's this plan for a mandatory European social credit scoring system. They call it due diligence in the European Union that is nearly law. It's almost law. It's been approved. by a bunch of different legislative bodies in the European Union. They're just hammering out the final details of it.

It literally could be passed within the next three or four months and made law. 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. 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 forced to report under this mandatory ESG guideline, 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. So think about how insane this is. You could have some, you got a Ford, for example, Ford car company, they sell lots of cars in the European Union. They would fall above that threshold. So they would have to submit Ford would to the mandatory ESG social credit scoring system that the European Union is proposing. And just 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. But give me an example of what Ford may have to do if they had to comply with a law like this. Right. So a social credit score is just a non-financial, it's non-financial measurements of a company. It's an evaluation of a company that's not based on financial criteria. So instead of looking at a traditional business metric like how many cars do you sell or how what's customer satisfaction or a number of employees or something, you look at what amounts to social justice criteria. So what is the gender ratio of your middle?

management, for example, is one such metric that exists. These are all, these aren't proposed. These exist already currently. They're just not mandated by government. What, what sort of investments are you making into activist community programs? How committed are you to fighting climate change? Racial quotas. How much water do you use? And then for Ford, of course, okay, how quickly are you going to phase out gas powered cars? When are you going to have all? electric cars. 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. Most people in the United States still want to use gasoline. 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. 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 want to won't have a choice. 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., who run the W.E.F. And so that's how it works. And they can, what they can do, and going back to the speech thing, they can say. America, well, this doesn't really infringe upon free speech. It doesn't really infringe upon the

First Amendment because it's not the government directly, if it was the American government, making a law saying, well, you can't say this or you can't say that. But it is making a law, even if it's not in America, in Europe, it all comes together. It's somewhere a law requiring companies to comply with a regulation that is then going to affect the freedom, the freedom, the flexibility that the people have, whether it's in Europe or whether it's in America. So it's their way to get around the Constitution. It's their way of getting around supply and demand, right? That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And so you'll have these, your part of the proposed social credit scores that they're talking about in this EU plan,

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. And so that is, is the plan. The plan is to impose these rules in the European Union, where Americans have no constitutional rights, and then companies, 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, then you have to be fighting climate change. You have to be fighting against misinformation and disinformation, as they define it in their rules. You have to have gender quotas. You have to have racial quotas. You have to have all of the thing. You have to bow

down to the LGBTIQIA2S plus agenda, like all of that stuff, 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, then you're going to get caught up in that. And that's the way that you change in their minds. That's the way that you change culture, not just in Europe, but that's how you change culture everywhere in the world. Because if every corporation is sending the same message through their products and their services and their advertising and their hiring policies because they have really no choice but to do it, then downstream of those choices, this is what elites are hoping, the rest of culture changes too, because that's the

message that they're getting from everywhere, everywhere they look. That's the message that they're going to get. And the left in America already has control of most of the academic institutions. They already have control of Hollywood. They already have control of the music industry. 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. And the Constitution, which was sort of the last thing standing in the way of that and states rights, all goes by the wayside unless every major corporation in America decides, you know what, we don't care. We're not doing business in Europe ever again. And we're not doing business with anybody who's in Europe ever again. And we know that will never

happen because there's too much money to be made there. And most big corporations agree with this stuff anyway. 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. 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. 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. At least for now, we are buying ourselves some time that maybe we can come up with some solutions to this.

And what I mean by that is, okay, my advertisers, and this has increased over the past few years, probably all conservative podcasters have seen this too, they have gone from like, just being neutral companies that are okay advertising on a conservative podcast to family-owned companies that I know 100% are, we're on the same team. 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 Jean Los Angeles or, hey, good ranchers, can you believe that you are advertising on that transphobes show? 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. They wouldn't leave my show because of those things. So the parallel economy when it comes to that is so important. That's why it's so important for us to support those conservative and Christian companies, companies that support our values. That's why companies like Public Square are important and all of that. 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 Glenbeck's show or whatever it is. 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. So, but it's still important. It's still important for us to build this parallel economy. It's important for places like the Blaze to have a subscriber-led content that's not dependent on advertisers. That's another thing that we can do. But we are going to have to create banking solutions.

We're going to have to create financial solutions that are not beholden to somehow the pressures of the W.EF and the UN and the European Union and ESG and DEI and all of these things. 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. Yeah, 100%. And that's why states are so important. 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, you can have banks formulated under state law that don't exist under federal law. Like that's possible to do something like that. 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 power. hours to do that. You can't do it on every single issue, like states can't make their own currency, for example, or things like that. 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. Like, that's really, really important. And most people, I think, are so focused on what happens at the federal level. 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 when in reality, that's the only hope that we have anyway.

The federal government's never going to do the right thing. 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. So we have to focus on what's going on in our local communities first, take advantage of that federalist system. And then we can actually solve some of these problems. Okay. So this wasn't on the docket for us to talk about. But because you're talking about states' rights, I want to. to talk about what Greg Abbott is doing in Texas and what's happening at the border, 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. So as we talked about earlier this week on the show, the Supreme Court said at least temporarily while litigation is going on, that the federal government can continue to remove the razor wire that Texas has put at the border to deter illegal migration. 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. 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. two protected supporters. So Supreme Court said, uh, yeah, this is federal government problem. At least right now, they can remove this razor wire. Well, Greg Abbott has come out with a statement that I think is pretty stunning for people. Basically, I won't read the whole thing. It's long. But basically saying, uh, look, the federal government president Biden has abandoned its responsibility. And so I am declaring an invasion. This is an invasion. And this triggers a state's right to self-defense. Basically, I'm going to defy you, President Biden and Majorcas, and we are going to

protect our border. Come and stop us, basically. That's what he's saying. Come and stop us. Let's see what happens. 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? Like, what does that look like is this a civil war what happens i mean i think it's great what gregg abbott has done as you said we got to protect states rights absolutely 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 yeah this is i mean predicting what's going to happen is is impossible 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, 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. And I think that 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 tug. And that's a very dangerous situation. once you start getting into that sort of thing. However, I think that there is, Texas has no choice, no choice but to do this whatsoever. 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, because we have laws on the books that say immigration laws on the books that say we get to do

X, Y, and Z. 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. So they're not enforcing law, one set of laws that they're supposed to be doing. 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. He's obviously not doing that on purpose, not because he can't, but because he doesn't want to. And they're allowing millions and millions of people to come into the United States illegally without enforcing it. And then when Texas, which I think you could make the argument because they have police powers and things like that,

have a responsibility on that side of things as well to just protect the citizens of Texas. And that part of doing that requires that they take some of the steps that they are taking. If the federal government isn't going to enforce its laws, I don't know how you could expect Texas to do anything other than that. We can't. 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. 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. 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. There's federal responsibilities, and they have an obligation to do certain things for the states, including protect them. That's one of their obligations.

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, and there's other things related to trade and stuff that they don't have authority over, and immigration rules, generally speaking, is one of those things. 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. Then of course the state of Texas has the right to step in and say, no, no, no, no, no. That's not how this works. We have rights to. We have police power. We have the right and responsibility to protect our citizens. 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.

And how can they do that if millions of foreigners are able to just cross the border or whatever they feel like it and no one's going to stop them because the federal government's decided to abrogate its responsibilities? This is the whole... There is no doubt whatsoever

that Texas must stand up for itself right now. If they don't, then this entire country is completely screwed, and there's no point in having states right anymore, frankly. 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. 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 very similar. Oh, yeah. Well, Beto O'Rourke is saying that Biden should say,

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 phobis 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? Are you, are you going to shoot Texas's troops? What are you going to do? I mean, that's, that's crazy. It is crazy. And I, 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.

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 they have to the federal government. Absolutely. So back to the W.EF. 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, 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 I guess because computers are going to be able to do all of that for us. So here's SOT2.

It is and digital technologies mainly have analytical power. Now we go into a predictive power. But since the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what predict. And afterwards you can say, why do we need elections? Because we know what the result will be. Okay. Can you interpret this for us, not just because he's actually hard to understand, but what does he mean by all this? Right. So Glenn Beck and I put out a book earlier in, well, in 2023, called Dark Future.

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, control society through technological advancements. 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, 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 conclusive.

conclusions, 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. They're better at human beings at deciding how to solve problems that exist in society. So why are we the ones making those decisions? We should just let them make the decisions and then we should just do what they want. 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. And Klaus Schwab is doing that in that clip right there. 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? 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. It's people at the WEF. It's people like Klaus Schwab. They're the ones writing the rules for it. So, of course, they want artificial. There still has to be an input. There still has to be an input to determine the output. I mean, computers are still made by humans. And so they're going to have biases. We've already seen that with things like,

Chat GBT GBT. The people who write chat GBT and have made this artificial intelligence, like what they think about politics, what they think about the world is being input into these computers. And we have already seen what direction they go. There's no, I haven't seen any based AI. It's all been like pretty progressive. And so I imagine that this artificial intelligence that apparently will be deciding our elections for us would probably be the same. way. So I think that you're right about that. 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, they really don't believe in fundamental things like human rights. There's been this clip going around. It's actually from 2014 and one of Schwab's top advisors, Yuval Noah Harari, he says basically that, well, human rights aren't a real thing. So here's top four. Many, maybe most legal systems are based on this idea, this belief in human rights. But human rights are just like heaven and like God. It's just a fictional story. that we've invented and spread around, it may be a very nice story, it may be a very attractive story,

we want to believe it, but it's just a story. It's not a reality. Okay. 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, are very arbitrary. If they are man-made, then men can take them away. But that is actually what the United States is founded upon in the Declaration of Independence, that we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And so the founders knew that. The founders predicted this exactly what he is saying, that, okay, 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. 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. New rights are going to be created. The old rights are going to be taken away, whatever. 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. So in one sense, this guy is kind of correct in that if they're just manmade, then what are they really? It is kind of a fiction. But that is also a threat to the existence of America. That is a threat to our foundations. That is a threat to everything that protects our right not to be victims of the whims of dictators. Right. Yeah, that's exactly right.

And that's the danger of depending too heavily on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies because artificial intelligence is essentially at its core. It's based on just algorithms and math and trying to predict outcomes using lots and lots of data. That's primarily what it's doing. It's making decisions based on massive amounts of data. And so you can imagine in a world, where if you have a worldview, like Yuval Harari and a lot of other people at the World Economic Forum, where you don't really believe that there is a higher power from which individual liberties and rights come, 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 this sort of utilitarian. What is the optimal outcome? How do we get the optimal outcome? However they define that.

but we're going to take individual rights out of the equation, then if you plug something like that idea into an artificial intelligence program and you say, okay, we want to eliminate poverty or we want to reduce poverty by as much as possible. 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. For example, maybe you just start killing people. I don't know. That might be the best way to alleviate poverty. You know, maybe you have eugenics. It wouldn't be the, the first time that a government believed to that. I mean, Mao comes to mind, but continue. Yes. Yes. And that's the point. Mao and a bunch of other people who have done similar things

also had that same foundational worldview of, well, there isn't really this singular Judeo-Christian God that's laid down these eternal truths or like the Muslim God or any of those. Like they rejected all those concepts. I mean, communism largely, and still is today, but especially at the time of Mao, was atheistic, exclusively atheistic in many circles. And so they rejected this concept of this sort of universal objective standard of morality. 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. And the rules for how you get there are deterrenties. by people like Yuval Hararia in the World Economic Forum,

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 ends justify the means, always, which is essentially what he's alluding to, then you could end up with lots of blood on the streets before you can get to the ends part of it. And the AI, unlike a human being like Mao or someone like that who is a monster, but he's still a human being, AI has zero empathy, zero problem with saying, well, maybe we should just kill everybody. Exactly. It's just however you get to the optimal outcome as it's been programmed to do. 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, 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, 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 AI decide. And you just end up with, well, then rights are totally meaningless, which is exactly what you've already is saying. Yeah. We have to have that foundational debate and win that argument. Or else we are headed for very dark times. People don't understand. Even on the conservative side, I think people don't understand what a post-Christian world is. They don't. They think that the theological foundation, that that's just optional,

that classical liberalism is a good enough. No, classical liberalism is it 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. 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, okay, but where do rights come from? Where does morality come from? Where does truth come from? And as brilliant as they are, and as compassionate people as they are, they cannot tell me. They cannot tell me. And if we cannot agree on that on the right or whatever side we're on, the non-crazy, non-W-E-F side, if we cannot decide on our foundation, then none of

it's going to work. Whereas the left just wants to destroy the right is trying to build. But in order to effectively build something, you have to agree on the foundation that you are going to build on. 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, even from a secular perspective, lack of the knowledge of the Bible. 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. Like we still understood that it was the most important piece of literature in Western civilization that you really can't understand our history. You really can't

understand our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, even the original state charters. You can't really understand who we are as Americans or members of Western civilization without knowing the Bible. 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. We can just build AI to do that. And you would be able to think, wow, this is our Tower of Babel. AI is our Tower of Babel. That did not end up well. in the Bible. Even if you, and I would think wrongly, but even if you just read the Bible as, okay, these are good principles, these are good lessons, this is something that we can learn.

You would at least be able to look at a story like that and say, oh, that caused chaos. That was bad for humanity when men tried to be like God, to build something to make them reach the heavens. This is like that. 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, 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. That's what makes us ripe for the victimization from, you know, from the powers in these global institutions.

Yeah. And I think for a long time, we've been in the West. Europe, you know, is the better example of this in America, but we're seeing it in America, too. We've been benefiting from the established Judeo-Christian worldview that even if people rejected it, this sort of vapors of it have existed. 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. And so everybody kind of agreed. Like, it's not a good idea to cheat on your spouse. 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? Like, they all sort of agree on that. And as we've moved further and further away,

away from it though, it started to erode. And now you're getting more and more people who say, why do we even have this? 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? Like, you know that they were homophobic and they were sexist and they, and so we shouldn't listen to them. And you know, the Constitution, that was written by a bunch of white guys who hated black people. 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. I just don't really believe the theology aspect to it to, I don't believe any of it.

Now, we should just burn the whole thing down and start all over again. And the problem with that, of course, is the moment you go in that direction, you end up with absolute tyranny. And that is not an opinion that is just a historical analysis of every other country that's tried to do this. Yep. You don't even have to go back that far. You just got to look at most of the 20th century.

There were lots of attempts to do that. And now there are new attempts to do that. It's not, as you have argued so many times, not just straight up socialism and communism, but actually in some way, these people at the W.E.F, they have realized that people do need a god. They need something to control them. They need someone to tell them what to do. Or people will seek that anyway.

And so, whereas communism and socialism, at least they're present. is that, well, the people can rule themselves, even though it's never actually worked out that way. I think that the oligarchs of the W.EF realized, well, that doesn't work. And so we can just not get rid of God, but replace him. And that is ultimately what this is all about. 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. 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, 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. Sure. They can go to any place that books

are sold, Amazon.com, you know, Barnes & Noble, anywhere like that. Dark Future, that's my latest book with Glenn Beck. We've got another book we're working on. 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. That's about propaganda and things like that. So that's going to be really exciting. And of course, go to Heartland.org to see all of the great things that we're doing at the Heartland Institute. Thank you so much, Justin. As always, very impressed by just the amount of work that you and Glenn Beck do every year in turning out these books. So helpful. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thanks, Allie.

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here

on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.