The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Daniel Kokotajlo | 4/21/25

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

Just one day after Easter, Pope Francis died of pneumonia, sparking a new papal election. But will the next pope revert to conservative tradition or stay globalist? Glenn recounts his eerie trip to the Vatican and why he believes Pope Benedict was the first victim of the global deep state. Glenn raises credibility concerns regarding the New York Times, which criticized historian Darryl Cooper for his comments on Winston Churchill, but endorsed the debunked "1619 Project." Glenn welcomes AI Futures Project Executive Director Daniel Kokotajlo, who sheds light on the companies that are building an artificial intelligence "army of geniuses.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

60% of the vans on Amazon come to vendor independent like Sac Magic. Hello, here Camille of Sac Magic. Our compresses, show of fraud are fabriced in Quebec, and our presence on Amazon enlarge our clientele

to world entire. Trouve of little enterprises like on our own.com. Winston Churchill, was he the bad guy in World War II? And the 1619 project. Did that? Is that where slavery began in America?

Okay. No. No. And that's not even the question we should be asking ourselves. Right now, the New York Times and others are trying to control what you hear and how you think. I've got a different approach to this. Also, it's worth time you learn the truth, but not to pay attention to all the noise out there through the media landscape.

And we're also going to talk a little bit about the Pope and opinion that you probably not heard anywhere else. And in the full podcast, you're going to get an hour of AI talk that you should probably, listened to from the guy who runs AI-20207.com. You ever feel like you're funding the other side every time you pay a bill, you're handing ammo to the people who just hate what you believe in? Unfortunately, some of the biggest cell phone

providers in this country donate millions of dollars to causes that undermine your faith. It undermines your values, your freedoms. So what do you do? Smash your phone and move into a cabin? No, you switch to Patriot Mobile. Although the cabin idea doesn't sound bad. They are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider,

and they use the same cell towers, the 5G network, same as the big guys. But here's the difference. Your money doesn't go to leftist nonsense. Instead, it supports pro-life causes, religious liberty, free speech, first responders, the kinds of things you actually believe in. Switching to Patriot Bubble is not just changing your phone plan.

It is a small act of defiance that says, not with my money. Same great service. Same great coverage. Better customer service. Everybody's here in America. And you're going to save money. You get a free month of service just by switching. Use the promo code Beck at 972 Patriot and get that free month of service. It's Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. Or 972 Patriot. Hello, America. You know we've been fighting every single day.

We push back against the lies, the censorship. the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you. We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it. But to keep this fight going, we need you. Right now, would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast? Give us five stars and lead a comment because every single review helps us break through big tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth. This isn't a podcast.

This is a movement. And you're part of it, a big part of it. So if you believe in what we're doing, you want more people to wake up. Help us push this podcast to the top. Rate, review, share. Together, we'll make a difference. And thanks for standing with us. Now let's get to work.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. I want to take on something else that I don't know. Maybe I should just keep my big fat mouth shut. Because I think this one's going to piss off everybody. But it's the truth. There was a story in the New York Times. The podcaster asking you to side with. history's villains. He was in the New York Times. Let me read some of it. Daryl Cooper is no scholar,

but legions of fans, many on the right, can't seem to resist what he presents as hidden truths. All of a sudden, everyone was coming for Daryl Cooper. There were the newspaper columnists, the historians, the Jewish groups, repugnant, says the chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust Museum in a statement. Even the Biden White House released a statement, calling him a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda. So it was for a time, for Mr. Cooper, one of the most popular podcasters in the country. To do what he does best, hit record. In a special episode of his history program, Martyr Made, Mr. Cooper addressed the controversy, which he had, which had exploded out of September 2nd appearance on the Tucker

Carlson Show, the podcast started by the former Fox News host. At first, Mr. Cooper, a gifted historic storyteller, but not a trained historian, defended the claims he had made on Mr. Carlson show, one that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of the war. ridiculous, not by implication, Adolf Hitler, the two and two that millions had died in Nazi-controlled Eastern Europe because Nazis had not adequately planned to feed them. Okay, not true. He then said, you know, the story goes on to say he then kind of retracted some of that stuff. This emotional ventriloquism is part of Mr. Cooper's approach and appeal. On TikTok, a fan praised him as one of the best historians of our time because he tries to go out of his way to understand the perspective of everyone involved in a situation.

These critics have probably helped make Mr. Cooper bigger than ever. He has been the most subscribed to history newsletter on substack, one spot ahead of the eminent economic historian, Adam Tuzes, in the wake of the Rogan interview, Mart, Mart, Marder made, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so they go on and on and on to talk about how this just can't stand. I mean, we've got to, there's got to be some sort of filter. and, you know, Joe Rogan just can't have on whoever he wants to have on. That's the problem.

Is it New York Times? Is that the problem? Hmm. It's really interesting. Now, let me just look in, and let me just look in the past here and see if we've had this exact same problem with anybody else. Because the person that came to mind was not Daryl Cooper, but Nicole Hannah Jones. because I think those two are the same coin. And the coins counterfeit, but just opposite sides of the same coin.

The Martyr Made podcast spins a tale of grievance and distrust, and it's wrapped enough in enough fact to keep it plausible. But there are some facts in there. Okay. Jones, she did the 1619 project. She did the same thing in reverse, except I think she's actually worse. I mean, because I think she made up almost everything in that. She recasts American history as racist from the very inception of the country.

Neither one of them is telling the whole truth. Neither one of them. Neither one wants to, I think. They're both in the business of narrative and not history. So am I. But I try to be fair. The real problem is not these two. honestly it's the new york times because in their sunday styles right up on cooper the times poses

as a concerned observer wary of growing influence among the disaffected right why are we disaffected why is the right disaffected we're disaffected because um you have tried to take our country from us everything that we believe our history our values our traditions and you've tried to denigrate them and destroy them every step of the way. And you've done it with one lie right after another. Okay. Why are they framing him, not with facts, but with suspicion? Not because he's dishonest or not dishonest, but because he's popular. They clutch their pearls because he has an audience. And only the New York Times can have that audience. But where was that concern when they gave an audience to Nicole Hannah Jones and gave her a Pulitzer for a project now so discredited by the very

historians that are now talking about Cooper. Where was the caution when they declared that 1619, not 1776, was the true founding of the nation? They didn't question her authority. They didn't say, well, she's not a historian. They printed it. In fact, they taught it and endorsed it. They platformed it in schools. That's different than anything that Joe Rogan is doing. They platformed it in schools. So let's be clear. Okay. I think both Cooper and Jones are wrong. They may have points worth considering, but I think that they get it fundamentally wrong in a few places. They are looking at facts to sell the story and not necessarily reveal the truth. Now, maybe I'm being too sick. cynical. But that's the way I see it. And I'm not condemning either one. I'm condemning all of those

on the left or the right that are now doing the same thing that the New York Times did with Cooper, but didn't do with Hannah Nicole Jones. Only one of those two was lauded by the New York Times as legitimate and a necessary corrective, even though it was all a law. lie made up. So that's what, when I'm reading that op-ed in the New York Times, I can't take the, oh my gosh, the hypocritical nature of it. I just, blood shoots out of my eyes. Because that's what the New York Times is actually saying.

Don't you little people understand? We must decide what stories are acceptable. Not you, not somebody like Joe Rogan. We will decide which distortions are. virtuous and which ones are dangerous. Not you. We get to choose the false prophets that get a column, and which ones are called conspiracy theorists. We, at the New York Times, we in the media. And that is the problem. This isn't about the authors. Okay, First Amendment gives them a right to say whatever they want. You may not like it. If you don't like it, stop listening. Well, but other

people might listen. Yeah, well, hmm, other people might listen. And maybe we should pay more attention to our education in our schools. Maybe we should pay more attention so we don't become somebody that is a dummy themselves and are, because this is the problem. We don't have a press that exposes lies anymore. We have a press that curates the lies. I really think this is why I started collecting, you know, we have now the third largest collection of founding documents in the American Journey experience along with David Barton's wall builders. It is, it's only behind the National Archives and the Library of Congress. Most people don't know it because, you know, we don't talk about it yet. Beginning in 26, we're going to be making a big deal out of it. We also have the largest

collection of Pilgrim era artifacts and documents in the world, the largest. So I can tell you what happened in Jamestown in 1619. I can tell you this. The ship that Hannah and Nicole Jones talks about, there were no slaves on that ship. How do I know? We have the manifest. No slaves. Hmm. That seems problematic, doesn't it? And the Mayflower did not launch a system of slavery. In fact, they fought against it. We, I mean, you're so crazy. What the Pilgrims did against slavery was remarkable, remarkable. When a slave ship accidentally came into their port, it was slavery was against the law. They called it man stealing. It was against the law. And as soon as that slave came into port, you could smell a slave ship. They knew exactly what it was. And they marched,

marched up and they arrested the captain of the ship. They put him in irons and put him in jail. And then these people who were already paying 50% of everything they made, these poor people. 50% of everything they made to a king that they despised, but they paid it because they wanted just to stay alive. They took up a collection from each other, not outside, from each other. Got a new captain, refueled, restocked the ship, and sent those people, those slaves back to Africa so they could be freed. That's who our pilgrims were. Don't believe me, you don't have to take my word for it. We have the evidence. Please. You know, the longest running treaty with Native Americans happened with our pilgrims,

and you know who broke it? Not the white man. It was the Native Americans. And you know why? Because after years and years of the pilgrims and the Native Americans getting along, Christianity was starting to seep into their culture. And they needed to go to war with a tribe. And the war that the way they used to fight it, the Native Americans, it was okay to enslave your enemy. In fact, you needed to. You could torture them after you won just to make a point. And then you could enslave anybody you wanted. And Christianity said, no, you can't do either one of those things.

And so the Native Americans that were part of this tribe that were friends and under this treaty with the pilgrims, they started telling their chief, you know, we can't do these things. And the chief got so pissed because he's like, we're fighting a war and we're fighting in the way we've always fought it, that they broke the treaty. Did you know that? Nah, no, we were just horrible. We stole the land. Did America live up to its ideals?

No. Has anybody ever? Have you? Has the Pope? Has anybody really lived up to their ideals all the time? No. But you have ideals and that's what matters. By the way, on the other side, I also happen to own a few original Nazi documents from the actual perpetrators.

I've got documents from the engineer that actually calculated how much Zyclon B it would take to murder a room full of Jews. Okay? It wasn't because they didn't want to, they didn't have enough food. This was calculated. I have the final prescription signed by Dr. Mangala for a thousand liters of luminal for the so-called children's hospital. That's how the Reich was killing the undesirables in the children's hospital. They didn't do it in a frenzy. It wasn't in a riot.

It wasn't out of desperation. It was silence in lab coats with bureaucrats and experts signing off. And the press like the New York Times refusing to say a word about it. The scariest people are not the ones in the streets. They weren't. They were the ones with titles, with offices, with press credentials. They were the ones with the doctorates. They were the people who decided what could be published.

Who could be published? punished, what could be known, what could be said. And that's the danger that we're staring down right now, not from fringe theorists on a podcast, not even from overzealous academics with a Pulitzer, but from the institutions that bless one distortion and condemn the other. Not based on truth, but based on usefulness. Is it useful to our side? I just want you to know, this is my stance on this and make this very very clear the first amendment does not exist to protect comfortable speech it doesn't exist to protect cooper

as opposed to Jones it exists to protect both of them it protects uncomfortable points of view things you do not like to hear and disagreement it protects people who are absolutely wrong and even those who are lying. It protects the process so you can figure it out. There is no licensed priesthood in our country,

you know, that are the priesthood of truth tellers, no official ministry of facts. That's where countries go wrong. The Times should be exposing both sides of these stories, just like I'm doing, the distortions of the right and the left. but instead they become exactly what they've warned us about, a newspaper that prints dogma and not dialogue. And the real problem here?

No, the real solution here is you. Jefferson warned that a man who reads nothing, but newspapers, a man who reads nothing is better informed than a man who only reads the newspaper. Okay, I would say the newspaper is today's social media. Man who reads nothing is more well educated than a man who just only reads social media. But today we might say, better to be ignorant than confidently misled by trusted media.

They see themselves not as a watchdog, but as a shepherd and we are the sheep. So I'm not defending either one. I'm defending the idea that we the people, not the institutions, not the elites, not the New York Times, not Joe Rogan, you decide, what's true. And that takes work and it takes curiosity. Maybe the other guy's wrong. I don't know. Maybe I don't have the whole story either. I don't know. Look it up. Because the minute you let somebody else decide what you're allowed to hear, you have already surrendered your freedom to think. So pain doesn't wait until it's convenient for you to appear, you know. It just shows up at the gym, It's your job, you know, when you're getting out of bed, trying to spend some time with your family.

And when it sticks around, it starts taking things from you, your energy, your independence. It even chips away at your patience. But it doesn't have to. This is where relief factor can really make all the difference in the world. It's not a drug. And there's four key ingredients, botanical and fish oil base. They're designed to help your body fight inflammation, the natural way, reduce pain, reclaim control of your body. It's something your body already wants to do.

It just needs some support. Millions have tried relief factor. Many feel results within the first three weeks. Some in less. And the best part, they're getting their lives back one by one. So here's a question. What would you do tomorrow if the pain wasn't in charge? Find out with Relief Factor.

Just try it. 1995. Try Relief Factor's three-week quick start. It's less than a dollar a day at 800 for relief. That's one, 800 for relief, the number four. relief relief factor.com go there now three week quick start relief factor dot com now back to the podcast this is the best of the glenbeck program and we really want to thank you for listening so uh we have uh daniel cocatello uh and uh he's a former open ai researcher daniel

have you been on the program before i don't think you have you uh no i haven't yeah well welcome i'm glad you're here um really appreciate thank you sir um I wanted to have you on because I am a guy who I've been talking about AI forever. And it is both just thrilling and one of the scariest things I've ever seen at the same time. And it's kind of like not really sure which way it's going. Are you, how confident are you that what did you say? It's going to go both ways. It's going to be very thrilling and also very scary.

Yeah. Okay, good, good, good. All right. Well, thanks for start my Monday off with that. So can you tell me, first of all, let's start with some of the good things that you think are coming and are right around the corner that people just don't understand. Because I don't think anybody, the average person, they hear this, they think it's, oh, it's like social media. It's going to be like the cell phone. It's going to change everything, and they don't know that yet.

Where to begin? I think, so probably people are familiar with systems like chat GPT now, which are largely. language models that you can go have an actual normal conversation with, unlike ordinary software programs. They're getting better at everything. In particular, right now and in the next few years, the companies are working on turning them into autonomous agents. So instead of simply responding to some messages that you send them and then, you know, turning off, they would be continuously operating, roaming around, browsing the internet, working on their own project, on their own computers, checking in with you, send you messages, like a human employee, basically.

That's what the companies are working on now, and it's the stated intention of the CEOs of these companies to build eventually superintelligence. What is superintelligence? Superintelligence is fully autonomous AI systems that are better than humans at absolutely everything. So on the surface, that sounds like a movie. that we've all seen. And you kind of, you know, you say that, and you're like, anybody that's working on these, have they seen the same movies I've seen?

I mean, what the heck? Let's spring and let's just go to see Jurassic Park. You know, X Machina. What do you think? I don't, I mean, is it just me or do people in the industry go, you know, this could be really bad? Yeah, it's a great question. And the answer is they totally have seen those movies. and they totally think, yes, it could go really bad.

In fact, that's part of the founding story of some of these companies. What do you mean? What do you mean? So Shane Legg, who is, I guess arguably the technical founder of DeepMind, which is now part of Google DeepMind, which is one of the big three companies building towards superintelligence. I believe in his PhD thesis, he discussed the possibility of superhuman AI. systems and how if they were not correctly aligned to the right values, if they were not correctly instilled with the appropriate ethics that they could kill everyone and, you know, become a superior competitor species to humans. It's not just Tim. Lots of the people at these

companies, especially early on, basically had similar thoughts of, wow, this is going to be the biggest thing ever. If it goes well, it could be the best thing that ever happens. If it goes poorly, it could literally kill everyone or do something, you know, similarly catastrophic like leading to a permanent dystopia. People react to that in different ways. So some people sort of stayed in academia. Some people, you know, stayed in whatever other jobs they had or founded nonprofits to do research about this sort of thing.

Some people decided, well, if this is going to happen, then it's better if good people like me and my friends are in charge when it happens. And so that's basically the founding story of a lot of these companies. That's sort of part of why DeepMind was created, and that's part of why Open AI was created. I highly recommend going and reading some of the emails that surfaced in court documents related to the lawsuits against OpenAI. Because in some of those emails, you see some of the founders of Open AI talking to each other about why they founded OpenAI. and basically it was because they didn't trust deep minds to handle this responsibly. And anyhow, did they go on to come up with, did they come on, did they go on to say like, you know, and that's why we've developed this and it's going to protect us from it?

I mean, or did they just lose their way? What happened? I mean, it's an interesting sociological question. My take on it is that, institutions tend to be, um, tend to conform to their incentives over time. Mm-hmm. There's been a sort of like, there's been a sort of evaporative cooling effect where

the people who are most concerned about where all this is headed tend to, uh, not be the ones who get promoted and end up running the companies and they tend to be the ones who, for example, quit like me. Um, you'd be, let's stop there. I'll stop there for a second. Hang on just stop there for a second. You were a governance researcher at Open AI on scenario planning. What does that mean? I was a researcher on the governance team. Scenario planning is just one of several things that I did. So basically, I mean, I did a couple different things that open AI. One of the things that I did was try to game out what the future is going to look like. So AI 2027 is a much bigger and more elaborate.

more rigorous version of some smaller projects that I sort of did while I was at Open Eye, if that makes sense. Like, I think back in 2022, I, like, wrote my own, like, gears gaming out what the next couple of years were going to look like, internal scenario, right? And then now that I've left. How close are you? I can. I'll get some things right.

Get something's wrong. Okay. The basic trend is hard to miss, right? A.S. is getting better and better, becoming more autonomous, et cetera. for how close I was overall, I actually did a similar scenario back in 2021 before I joined Open AI. And so you can go read that and judge what I got right and what I got wrong. I would say that that's about par for the course for me when I tend to do these sorts of things.

And I'm hoping that the I, 27 will also be, you know, about that level of right and wrong. So you left. And the thing I read in 2021 is called What 2026 looks like in case you want to look up. Okay. Well, we'll look it up. You walked away from millions in equity in OpenAI. What made you walk away? What were they doing that made you go, I don't think it's worth the money.

So back to the bigger picture, I think. Remember, these companies are trying to build superintelligence. It's going to be better than humans, better than the best humans at everything, while also being faster and cheaper, and you can just make, you know, many, many copies of them. The CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amadai, he uses this term, the country of geniuses on a data center to try to visualize what it would look like,

what it would look like, because quantitatively we're talking, you know, millions of copies, each one of which is smarter than the smartest geniuses while also being more charismatic than the most charismatic, you know, celebrities and politicians and like, everything, right? So that's what they're building towards. And that raises a bunch of important questions. Like, is that even a good idea for us to build, for example?

And how are we going to make that safe? And also, who gets to control the army of geniuses in the data centers? Right. And what orders are they going to be given? And who gets to the side? Right. And these are some extremely important questions, right? And there's a huge, actually, that's not a huge,

even other questions. There's a long list of other very important questions, too. I was just scratching the surface. And what I was hoping would happen at OpenAI and that these other companies is that as the creation of these AI systems, it's closer and closer. You know, it started out being far in the future. But as time goes on and progress is made, it starts to feel like something that could happen in the next few years, right? Yes, right. As we get closer and closer, there needs to be a lot more waking up and paying attention and asking these hard questions and a lot more effort exerted to prepare to deal with these issues. So for example, opening I created the super alignment team, which was a team of technical

researchers and engineers specifically focused on the question of how do we make sure that we can put any values into these AI systems. How do we make sure that we can control them at all, even when they're smarter than us? So they started that team, and they said that they were going to give 20% of their compute to working on this problem, basically. How much percentage went? Well, I don't know, and I can't say, but I think it's much less than 20%. I would imagine it is. It was a big step up, right?

Yeah, yeah. So 20% was huge at the time because it was way more. than any company was devoting to that technical question at the time. So at the time, it was a sort of leap forward. It didn't pan out. As far as I know, they're still not anywhere near 20%. And that's just an example of the sort of thing that made me quit, where I'm like, we are just not ready, and we're not even taking the steps to get ready.

And so we're going to be away, even though we don't understand it, don't know how to control it, and, you know, it's going to be a disaster. that's basically what caused me to live. You're streaming the best of Glenn Beck. To hear more of this interview and others, download the full show podcasts wherever you get podcasts. All right. So yesterday for Easter, by the way,

happy Easter, Stu. Happy Easter, Glenn. A day after Easter. Yes. 364 days till the next one. Thank you very much. Wow. How do you do that?

Are you a mathematician? No, that's right. J.D. Vance, J.D. Vance was with the Pope on Easter, and then the Pope dies. That's all I'm going to say. I'm just going to leave it there. I'm just going to, you draw your own conclusions, America. No, he had a good conversation, apparently, with the Pope, and the Pope died. He was very, very sick in the hospital.

He had pneumonia. So we're back to the voting for a new Pope. Now, if I may, let me just. just tell you a story that I don't think most in the media even understand, and if they do, they certainly won't touch it. But I was there back in 2013, I think. Rob, what did we decide? It was 12 or 13, something like that. I was at the Vatican. I was supposed to meet with the Pope. I met instead with a bunch of the high advisors for the Pope, and it was Pope Benedict at the time. And I just want to talk to you about what I learned there and what we need to understand on this last Pope because there was a quiet coup inside of the walls of the Vatican.

The first public victim of the deep state was not a president of the United States. It was the Pope. It wasn't a priest, wasn't a whistleblower. It was Pope Benedict. Benedict wasn't just a conservative, although he was a staunch conservative. He was absolutely immovable. He was elected in 2005. He stood for everything the modern world wanted the church to abandon. He had moral clarity. He was a traditionalist and a spiritual authority. And my first realization that Pope Francis was going to be none of these things is when the media

was talking, you know, they kept doing the white smoke and the black smoke. And they finally had, I don't remember what it is, the white or the black smoke. And it came out and they knew they had a pope. And so they were awaiting and they were speculating. Everybody on CNN and ABC, they were all speculating. Who could it possibly be? And they started to speculate. And they would say, oh, it's probably this cardinal.

Oh, he's a real hardliner. He's going to be really bad. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Then they finally came up to this pope. I don't remember what his real name is. you know, they mentioned him and they said, well, we don't know much about him. And within 10 minutes, everybody on every network started talking about how great he was going to be. He was practically Jesus. And then when he was named Francis, oh, see, he is Jesus or St. Francis, take your pick.

And I remember looking at you, Stu, and saying, oh, boy, we're in trouble. They like him. This guy's going to be a nightmare. So you had Benedict who would not compromise on life, no surrender on marriage, no applause for, you know, the modern world. And the globalist hated him. The media called him rigid, progressive called him dangerous. And the machine went to work behind closed doors because that machine is in every government. And make no mistake, the Vatican is a government. scandal after scandal, corruption, abuse, all real problems, yes, but they were used to discredit this Pope and to stabilize his papacy.

And he refused to ban. And then suddenly in 2013, he resigns. Now, I remember when this happened, gang, let's put this into what we now know, okay? We now know who replaced him. now have seen the deep state in governments all across the world. Okay. We have seen people being voted for and the deep state didn't like them. And so they say, nope, not him. We've seen them throw people into jail. Okay. So by 2013, he resigns. And he's the first pope in 600 years to resign. And it's because he was too frail. He was too frail. He was too tired. Biden wasn't. But Ben,

was okay and yet he lived for nearly 10 years he lived he wrote he was speaking he was warning he stayed in the vatican inside the walls he stayed in the vatican he wore white he signed his name pope emeritus that's not retirement that's him not really resigning that's resistance that's what that was And into that void came Pope Francis. Immediately everything about the church changed. There was global applause. Oh, my gosh. Climate change sermons.

Remember those, they were great doctrinal ambiguity to where the point where Catholics were like, wait a minute, what is he saying here? Suddenly the church is less about salvation, more about sustainability and collective salvation, less moral compass, more moral relativism, and it seemed as though the fix was in. Now, even members of some press overseas were saying, this was a coup. Apparently, Benedict left a box, it's called a white box, full of scandal files, and it was not a gift to Pope Francis. It was a warning.

He knew he saw it coming. So it wasn't a resignation. It was a removal from office, a soft coup by the progressive faction inside the church, who was eager to align Rome with Davos. And make no mistake, Davos was there. The UN was there. You know, all the global priorities of the UN and Davos were there that have nothing to do with God. but now the church was aligned with all of it.

I remember going, as I said, we were supposed to meet with the Pope, and I went and I met with several cardinals, I think the good cardinals, and I saw stuff that I had never seen before. It was amazing. I saw the church as political and as spiritual at the same time. I'm a former Catholic, so I respect the Catholic Church. I also, you know, I'm no dummy. It is a political organization. I think most churches can, you know, go that direction. But especially one that's, you know, what, 2,000 years old, 1900 years old, I think it could probably go awry from time to time and go political because that's what it,

that's what it was for a very long time. and I remember seeing the guy who I think was in charge. Is Jason out there? See if Jason can come in for a second. There was a guy that Jason was with me. Rob, can you open up one of those mics? Do you know? Jason, remember when we were at the Vatican?

You were in the room. Remember that big map room? It was like we were in the Godfather. Yeah. Okay. I don't remember what that place was, but it was, you know, like near the, Vatican, right around the Vatican. And it was a place where they went and they held, you know,

dignitaries and held functions there. And it was amazing. It was like a three-story room that we were in. And they were the biggest maps of the world I've ever seen. And all of the, I mean, it was incredible. And it had to be 400 years old. Would you agree with that? Oh, yeah. Okay. So it's just steeped in quite honestly, Dan Brown kind of. Totally Dan Brown. Right? Totally. that. And I had just gotten out of the archives the day before. And I don't even know how I got this invitation, but I was given an invitation. And even the guy who consulted the Pope for doctrinal issues, when we were, I don't know, a quarter of the way into the archives, he was with me. And I asked him a question. And he said, don't ask me. Ask him, I've never been allowed in here. And the next day,

when we were getting a tour from the head of the Vatican Museum, he said, you'll never guess where they were yesterday. And we said, you know, they were in the Vatican archives. And she stopped. She was the head of the museum. She stopped. And she looked at me and she was like, tell me about it. What was that like?

So, like, I don't know how we got in there, but we were asked to go in. So we're experiencing all of this stuff. And that night we were with, I don't even remember who they were, but they were the most Christ-like, you know, cardinals and preachers or whatever they were that I had been with the whole time. They were so kind. You could just feel the goodness coming off of.

They were real servants of God. And we were all standing around talking, and you could tell everybody's guard in that group, everybody's guard was up. And all of a sudden, and I'm not kidding you, the room dropped 10 degrees. and I happen to be facing looking at the door way across this huge room. And here comes this guy.

I don't know if he was a cardinal. He was, wasn't he in charge of all of the Pope's schedule or something? Something like that. Yeah, okay. So he was, he was the main guy that, you know, you had to get by if you were going to get to the Pope. And the room dropped. It became cold. And I said, holy cow, who is?

is that guy. And the whole group of really nice guys turned around and looked at him. And one of them turned back and went, oh, you can feel that? And I said, oh, yeah, just feel no offense. I didn't know if they liked him or not. I said, no offense, but he doesn't seem like a good guy. And he was way across the room. And they were like, oh, good sense on you. Oh, no, he's leading the opposition. So he's the guy, I think, that was helping thwart Benedict, and he was on in the inside. Okay. It's exactly the Trump story. Would you agree? Yeah.

It felt like it felt almost like a game of thrones within the Vatican, didn't it? That's like the best. And it was the weirdest, weirdest feeling. Yeah. And it's exactly what we saw in 2016. I had never seen that before. But it's exactly what we saw in 2016. It's what we're now seeing in the EU, where the people with power are just taking people out.

The pattern here is really familiar because we've seen it in Washington. We've seen it in Hollywood. We've seen it in the media. It's the replacement of the immovable with those who are more amelible, the strong replaced by the inclusive, the faithful with the fashionable. that's what happened. And this deep state doesn't just run in governments. It runs in everything. It runs in institutions.

And when those institutions start to resist the world's direction, they're infiltrated, they're neutralized, and they're repurposed. And it is in everything. It happened at the Vatican. I saw it. And Pope Benedict was the warning shot that we all missed. He was the first Donald Trump, I believe. Now, what happens next? Are we going to get somebody, you know, as the church is starting to grow again, the Catholic Church is starting to grow, and it's growing with Generation Z who are saying we want our traditions back. We want marriage. We want truth. We want eternal truth as it's laid out in the Gospels of Jesus Christ. As it's growing, Will the church grow in that direction?

Or has Francis put such a cabal in there that you might get somebody who says that, but is doing... Is it going to be, yeah, we just elected a new guy and he's doing exactly what the last guy did? Just the way it happens in our government and every other government on earth. We'll see. It begins today. When you were little, you have braced in the course of recreat, always in trying to

negotiate, to change the cards of hockey, the bonhom, the bracelets, even of the collation. You know,

that each has a value very before to have to have been the things have not really changed.

Negoti T-D you can't to renew with your instinct of your instin to with without

operation gratuit, no amount minimum and nocure money and you're made for

you're made, and the appellee the application Titre T-D is made for you help. Telecharge it right now.