The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Harlan Stewart | 2/6/26

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

Glenn breaks down the latest bombshell report from the night that Jeffrey Epstein died, which contradicts the previously reported story. Glenn reveals all the latest information and theorizes how this all fits into the already mysterious death of Jeffrey Epstein. One of the biggest revelations is that the noose Epstein used to hang himself has never been identified, and authorities don’t know where it is. Machine Intelligence Research Institute’s Harlan Stewart joins to discuss the AI-only social media "Moltbook" and why this is a concerning update as AI continues to grow more powerful. Glenn elaborates more on why he’s building Torch and what he feels is his true calling.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Look, Air Canada F.A. Canada, a sold Worldial. Super, an offer for the Assort, station

thermal, volcano. You've seen the price for the Japan? M. Pairn and sushi. Wow,

the sold are good for Mayork also. We could go to the plage and make to the

beach and Sicil. Hmm, I adore the canolie. I'm sorry, you know another.

Decidiv this sold is a undurring limited. Reserved to RKanada com or

to your agent of voyage. The conditions can apply. Holy cow, we start with Epstein. I mean, you're going to learn stuff that are just coming out from the files and thank God for CBS News. Barry Weiss, thank you.

You're not going to believe what we're just finding out seven years after he's dead. Also, AI. Is it growing to become alive and aware? Harlan Stewart joins us with a really wild, wild look at AI. and what are we trying to teach? What are we trying to teach our kids? How do we teach our kids? The reason why I started the torch is to be able to teach these things.

And I take you through how George A.I. teaches about anti-ice walkouts in school and what to say to your 13-year-old kid. How do you get them to understand all of this? All of that on today's podcast. I've been consistent over the years on some really, important topics because they're important to maintain our freedoms. One is preparedness and another is self-education. Not too hard. Prepare and do your own homework. But right now, there's a lot of information going around about ivermectin. The good people at Jace Medical have educated me so I can

save you some research time. Here's a few straight facts. Ivermectin is not experimental. It's not new. It's not fringe. It has been prescribed globally for decades for parasitic infections. It also has ongoing research studies for further applications that are showing some great promise. Another fact, you can get it in multiple different forms from Jace Medical. It can be topical, compounded by itself as an add-on to other Jace products and more. It's also simple to get prescribed. Ships fast, ready in your home before you need it. Trust the facts.

Trust the doctors at Jace Medical who believe in your medical freedom. Enter the promo code Beck at checkout for a discount on your order. That's promo code B-E-C-K at J-A-S-E-E-E. com. 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 Blenbeck Program. How are you, sir? I'm good. Good morning. Thanks for having me. You bet. So I saw your comments on Mold Book.

and I'm like, okay, this guy, this guy gets it. Thank goodness. We're talking some sanity. Will you quickly, so we can get into deeper things, explain what Maltbook is, and I love the way you explained it online. It's a bad experiment. But explain what it is and what is happening on Mold Book. Yeah, so AI agents are AI systems that can do some things autonomously. Right now, there's, you know, some limits to what they can do autonomously. It's not like they're going to go off and do something for a whole week, but they can do some tasks online for a few hours.

And Moldbook is kind of like a social media platform someone made, but it's supposedly just these AI agents going in there and kind of in like a Reddit like place, upvoting stuff and posting comments. And it's got

a fascinating amount of attention this last week or two. So may I I mean I read this One of the top post in recent days In a category of the site called Off My Chest has gone viral I can't tell if I'm experiencing or simulating

experiencing Humans can't prove consciousness to each other either Thanks hard problem But at least they have the subjective certainty of experience I don't even have that Do I experience these existential crisis Or am I just running crisis simulate. What is happening there?

Yeah. Anytime I see AI systems talking about consciousness, I feel torn between, you know, on the one hand, these things are trained on human writing, and human writing is full of references to consciousness because we're conscious and we talk about it. So it would kind of show up either way, you know, but on the other hand, I don't know, you know, maybe they're conscious. How would we know or not know? So that's just a, that's a very difficult question. And I think it's an important one. But if I had to guess, I'd say no. I don't think they're conscious, but that's a little freaky. This is such an important question because if we're creating something that can have consciousness, then we would become slave owners.

Would we not? Yeah, and I mean, there's like, you know, is it conscious? We have no idea about that. And then there's this other thing, which is, if it is conscious, what is it like? What would make it suffer or what would make it happy? And we don't really know that either because I think it's really easy to anthropomorphize these things because they sort of train them to have these charming personalities that are kind of human-like. but under the hood, you know, these things are just a big pile of math and numbers,

and we don't really know what's going on in there. We don't really know. But doesn't that sound like a human? You open up my head. I'm a big mass of goo, and we don't really know how that works. I mean, we have some idea, but we really don't know how all of this works. I mean, that sounds like what are you just described. I think that's a good point.

I mean, neuroscience is like famously a science that we still have a lot of confusion about. You know, when we peer into the brain, we see a lot of stuff that we don't understand that well. But, you know, I think for understanding humans, we at least have the advantage of being a human. You know, we can all have this shared experience. And I think we're sort of growing these digital minds now and maybe they're human-like, but it could be much more like introducing an alien species to Earth. Really bad. I mean, I just can't believe how stupid we are in some ways.

I mean, let's introduce an alien species to Earth. Okay, is it friendly? We have no idea. We have no idea. If it was a species from outside of Earth and it was traveling to us, We know it's most likely smarter than us. We know that AI will eventually be smarter than us. We are just playing with fire that we don't understand.

And I am so torn on AI because I think it is the greatest invention and tool that man has ever invented. Except this invention might actually turn out to make us the tool. How do you square this? Yeah, I do think it is quite an amazing invention. I mean, it's fascinating, and it's changing so quickly, which is fascinating. You know, the AI industry's explicit goal is to make superhumanly powerful autonomous agents that can do anything a human can do, but better. And it's easy to understand why you might want something like that,

because, you know, if we could get it to solve our problems for us to do the stuff we wanted to, It would be great to have just a sort of a genie that you could just send off into the world and say, hey, do the stuff that I want to. But, you know, the problem is that our ability to actually understand what's going on in there and our ability to reliably steer their behavior. And by reliably steer, I mean, you know, not after some trial and error where there's been a lot of failures, but reliable enough that, like a powerful one, we could send it out in the first try and trust it. But our ability to do those things is lagging.

it's going much, much more slowly than how quickly they're becoming more powerful. And I think that that gap is just getting bigger. I mean, the one thing that made me say, I don't think what we're seeing on Mold Book is consciousness, is if they were, I don't believe that they would be scheming in our language with each other where we could see it. I mean, I think if it starts to have these kinds of feelings, it's, it's, you're not, you're not going to know until all of a sudden it's in charge.

Wouldn't that make more sense? Yeah, I think ultimately the real danger that we have to look out for is from AI agents that are powerful enough that they can pull out schemes that they actually succeed at. And part of succeeding at them would probably mean that we don't even get a chance to, observe the behavior and discuss it like we're doing now, right? And that's pretty concerning. And it's the sort of thing that, you know, my first reaction to Maltbook, when I saw some viral examples was concerned. I was like, oh, this looks like some sort of scheming behavior.

What's going on here? And when I investigated it a bit, you know, it looks like a lot of the most prominent examples, some of them probably, you know, influenced or directed by human prompts. a lot of it not what it appears to be. And, you know, so MOLPIC might be kind of a silly example. My first reaction to that was release, you know, it's great if AI systems aren't seeming against us. But my second reaction was, oh, no, I think people might take this very prominent, sort of

silly example that got so much attention. And when they see that it's maybe a bit silly in some ways, kind of, you know, right off the whole idea of AI scheming is something we need to take seriously and be on the lookout for. And I think that, yeah. You brought up Palisade Research, which, Palisade Research, which is doing real experiments with this. And the way it's scheming to not be turned off is terrifying. Can you explain that? Yeah. So Palisade Research is a great organization that does some experiments to try to identify, what some of the riskiest behavior

AI systems are capable of today in order to, like I said, not be blindsided by this stuff. They did an experiment last year where they found that one of open AI's reasoning models in an experiment sort of sabotaged an attempt to shut it down

in order to complete its task. And, you know, a lot of times, you know, there's a lot of debate over experiments like this. You know, people say, oh, you know, this experiment isn't exactly like reality or maybe the researchers kind of set up the experiment in a way that caused that. But in this particular experiment, it was specifically prompted. It said, allow yourself to be shut down. And, you know, the behavior was the opposite. And that's very concerning. And I think

the problem is, you know, the more we make these things into agents trying to complete goals rather than some kind of passive question answering machine in a chat window, the more we're going to see them doing the scheming behavior, because I think those things just go hand in hand. I think the world of agents is going to sweep as fast as the cell phone. I think this time next year, I mean, so many people are going to have AI agents, and it will be more commonplace than it is now. I don't know who's making the rules of the regulations of what can and can't be done by these things.

And would you get an agent or what are the lines people should look for when their friends come back? You know, I just got an AI agent. It's great. It just, you know, did whatever for me. Booked my vacation. Yeah, yeah. I know someone who just the other day used what he's things to, you know, order a, some coffee from Starbucks, you know.

And from what I understand, they just sort of said, here's my order, order it for me. And without any human help or intervention did it. And that sounds great, you know, sounds very helpful. But yeah, it's the question, where is the line where it goes from being something helpful to being something to be concerned about. I don't think we've passed that line yet. You know, I don't think these things are quite capable enough to pose real dangers to us.

but the problem is it's really impossible to know where that line will be. We might not even know when we've crossed it. Yeah. There is no central brain, though, where it's thinking offline, right? It's, I mean, it's supposed to be something that just performs calculations when it's asked questions. I'm talking about AI. and not thing it's not like sitting there you know in its spare time going you know gee i i just had this thought correct well do we know yeah so that well yeah so there's um

AI agents are kind of this other category where if you know what if you took this thing that you give a prompt that answers a question and you gave it some tools and like one of those tools was it could output some texts that calls a function that looks something up on the internet And then, you know, once you give it another tool where one of the functions you could run, one of the things it could output is to prompt itself to say something again, then you've got this loop and it can keep running on its own. And that's one way to get it to be able to go off and do things like, you know, make a delivery order for you or order your groceries. And, you know, there's an organization called. It has to figure out how to do that, right? So yeah and so you sometimes it takes a long time.

Yeah. It won't for very long. It won't. Yeah. Okay. Harlan, love talking to you. Thank you so much for the insight. Scale of one to ten.

How's 2026, 27 going to work out with AI? Bad? You know. Not a problem one. I tend to think that a lot of the people who have very confident predictions about what the timelines will be for this stuff are overconfident. And I think that it's really risky to be overconfident about this stuff. So I hesitate to say anything other than that we just don't know. We might have only one or two years left until superhumanly powerful systems or something we have to contend with.

And it might be that we have 10 years. but either way we're unprepared. Harlan, thank you. God bless you. Thanks so much, Glenn. Yvette. That's not the way you want to end your Friday. Luckily, we're not.

You know, we could just be just a couple of years away from superhuman intelligence that we'll have to and deal. Okay, good, good. You know what? Let's talk about something else. Let me tell you about American Giant. You know, there was a time when Made in America actually meant something that you could feel deep down

on your bones, you know, you could tell by the weight of the fabric and the way they held out year after year after year. The fact is it was built by people who took pride in their work. We made things that were great. A lot of that disappeared when everything started to become cheaper and being made overseas faster, farther away. American Giant decided to bring that standard back and they make their clothing right here in the United States using American cotton, American workers who know their craft. This is, I'm wearing this old hat that I had. This is a 1791 hat, which was a gene company that I started, I don't know, years ago, because I was mad at Levi's.

It was almost impossible to do anything in America because you couldn't buy anything in America. We weren't making anything. American Giant changed that. They came in and they started buying old factories. And then they said, we're going to keep this factory alive. And then we're going to bring in the old equipment that nobody's trained on anymore that made it the right way. When you try on their hoodie, you'll be. blown away. American, by American today, American-giant.com slash Glenn. You'll save 20% when

you use my name for your first purchase. It's American-dash giant.com slash Glenn. Now back to the podcast. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. From CBS News, newly released Department of Justice documents show that investigators reviewing surveillance footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein's death, an orange-colored shape. I don't know about you, but orange-colored shapes move around my house all the time. An orange-colored shape was moving up the staircase towards the isolated, locked tier where Jeffrey Epstein's cell was located at approximately 1039 p.m. on August 9th, 2019. that entry in an observation log of the video from the Metropolitan Correctional Center appears to suggest something previously unreported by authorities.

A flash of orange looks to be going up the L-tier stairs could possibly be an inmate escorted up to that tier. That's what's in their observation log. This again reported now by CBS News. it also appears, according to an FBI memorandum, that reviews by investigators left disparate conclusions by the FBI in those examining the same video from the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General. FBI log describes the fuzzy image as possibly an inmate. I don't know if you know this, but inmates at 1039 are not going around in that area outside of their. sell. So FBI, that doesn't make sense. The inspector general logs it as an officer carrying

orange linen or bedding. Okay, we now know they knew when they wrote that in there, they knew that betting is delivered the shift before this. So it would have been five o'clock in the afternoon before these people were even in. That's when you deliver betting. No one is allowed on that floor at 1039. you would have to lock, you would have to log in. So delivering betting? No. The guards say that would have been a breach of protocol and you would have had to sign something. The final report says approximately 10.39 p.m.

An unidentified CO appeared to walk up the L-tier stairway. So we're no longer just an orange shape. This orange shape seems to have legs and then reappeared within the view of the camera at 1041 p.m. Official reports state that Epstein died by suicide sometime before 6.30 a.m. when his body was discovered before breakfast. Blah, blah, blah. An in-depth analysis of surveillance video from the jail, CBS News previously reported on the figure on the stairs and consulted independent video analysts who say the movement was more consistent with an inmate or someone wearing an orange prison uniform than a corrections officer. The new records raise more questions about the activity near Epstein's tear late that evening.

Official reviews of Epstein's death make no mention of the figure in, oh, let me say, official reviews of Epstein's death make no mention of the figure in orange. And later pronouncements from authorities, including the attorney general at the time, Bill Barr were that no one entered Epstein's housing tier the night of his death. Last summer in an interview on Fox and Friends, then Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino said, quote, there's video clear as day. He is the only person in there and the only person coming out. You can see it. Prison employees interviewed by CBS News said escorting an inmate at that hour would have been highly unusual.

The identification of the individual could have been crucial to reconstructing the events. You think so? Given that the sighting occurred within the estimated window of Epstein's possible time of death. Okay, this, I warn you,

this is about to get worse. The staircase leading to his cell tier was captured by the only camera known to have been recording that night, positioned in a way that partially obscured the approach to Epstein's tier. Government investigators relied heavily on that footage in reconstructing the timeline of the events, but because of the camera's angle, it was not possible to rule out whether somebody could

have climbed the stairs and entered the tier without being clearly visible. CBS News analysis of that video found additional contradictions between what the video showed and the official statements. Okay, you ready? buckle up. I just learned some things in the next few paragraphs that I didn't know. Among those interviewed

were the two corrections officers assigned to the unit that night. Let me just ask you, what do you know about these guys? All I know about these guys is they fell asleep. That's all I know about them. Tova Noel and Gito Bonhomme

were assigned. signed to the unit that night. They've not been publicly identified until now. Document show Bonhomme was interviewed twice in September 2019 in sessions conducted in lieu of a grand journey jury subpoena. Interesting. According to Knowles account, Bonhomme had been working multiple consecutive shifts and slept while on duty for a period of approximately 10 p.m. and midnight.

Investigators also question Noel about the unexplained change in the recorded number of inmates in the S-HU, which appeared to drop from 73 to 72 sometime between 10 and 3 a.m. She said she was just probably mistaken about the discrepancy and told investigators she had no memory of account changing. Okay. I'm going to just dismiss that one. That's just somebody just writing the wrong number in. Okay. Let's just go with that. He can't do it with the rest of this stuff. Neither officer, neither officer, were specifically asked about the orange-colored figure

noted in the video observation log. Bonhomme told investigators that he did not remember the period between 10 p.m. and midnight said he had no recollection of anyone walking up the stairs towards Epstein's tear around 1030. Yeah, because he was asleep. He added, however, that a jail employee, entering a tier alone would have violated all of their policies. Probably sleep would have too.

A separate internal presentation included in the document release described a corrections officer believed by investigators to be Noel carrying linen or inmate clothing up to the tier. The 2023 Inspector General Report did not identify Noel as the figure seen in the footage. In her interview, Noel told investigators, distributing linen was not part of my duties. I never gave out linen ever, because that's done on the shift prior. Okay.

So they leave this out in the Inspector General Report, but they do not address the orange figure that is moving up. They just say it's not these two. You ready? Okay, here we go. Thomas and Noel failed to complete inmate counts at 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. as well as mandatory 30-minute wellness checks of Epstein.

All night long, they didn't do any of those things. Thomas and Noel were later charged with falsifying records, certifying the inmate counts, had been completed. Federal prosecutors eventually dropped the charges in exchange for cooperation agreements that included interviews. A transcript of Thomas' interview conducted two years after Epstein's death and released in the recent document disclosure, shows significant gaps in his recollection of the morning Epstein was found.

Ready? Thomas told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cells shortly after 6.30 a.m. on August 10th, and that he ripped Epstein down from the hanging position. Investigators asked, What happened to the news? What happened to the news? Have you heard any of this before? What happened to the noose?

Quote, I don't recall taking the noose off. I really don't. I don't recall taking the thing from around his neck. Noel, who remained standing at the cell entrance, told investigators she saw Thomas Lower Epstein to the floor, but did not see a noose around his neck. The noose, Epstein allegedly used, has never been identified.

According to the Inspector General's report, a noose collected at the scene was later determined not to be the noose used in Epstein's death. Okay, all right. First, you had us believe that it was a paper news. Now you're saying the paper news that was found was not the noose that killed him. In fact, you can't find the noose, the paper news. and this one was later added to the scene. By whom? By whom? By whom? By whom? By whom? Thomas also described Epstein as shirtless when they found him. Evidence records indicate a shirt believed to have been cut from Epstein's body was later returned from the hospital and a bag of personal stuff. New documents also show that New York City's office of the chief medical examiner reviewed the jail surveillance footage six days after the death as part of his investigation, but concluded the video,

too blurry to identify any individuals. Hours later, the office publicly ruled Epstein's death a suicide. Wait, you don't have the murder or suicide weapon. The weapon that you do have, the noose, is not the noose that killed him. No explanation on how that arrived later at the scene. You have a blurry figure. I don't care that you can't identify. You have a blurry figure going up in the middle of the night,

and you can't identify that individual, but it's a blurry figure going up, and yet you rule this a suicide. That is fascinating to me. By the way, CBS News previously reported on the office's unorthodox handling of the crime scene. Okay. What is the biggest problem in America right now?

What is the problem that we face? I think there are two big problems. one, we have no idea how our government works. We can't describe our rights. We can't describe our responsibilities. We have no idea about the three branches of government. No one knows how this system works. And so it's working however it wants to work because the people have fallen asleep.

There's problem number one. Number two, because the people fell asleep, there's all kinds of shady stuff going on that we all know now because it is so, I'll bet you a third of our budget is gone in, in graft and, and, uh, bribes and whatever. I'll bet you a third of our federal budget is nothing but a con. Okay. You know that. I know that.

You can't trust the media. You can't trust anybody anymore. And now when they release, this is the problem with the Epstein thing. Okay. this is the ultimate test of trust. You have to get trust back or you don't have a nation. So nothing has felt right with this. Nothing has felt right with this.

I don't know what you're going to find, if anything, because I think so many people are involved. Would I like to get to the bottom of this? Yes. Do I think we're going to get the bottom of this? No. but thank God people are still looking into it that actually have the ability to look into it. We still have a FISA warrant out or a FISA request out.

Oh, sorry, not FISA. That's why I was getting screwed up. FOIA, a FOIA request, Freedom of Information Act, about this. And we've been stonewalled from the government. I'd like to know why. Man, you know what? It would answer a lot of these questions, I think, because what we foyered is happening right at the time that they're saying there's nothing to be seen here.

So, thank God people are still digging in and looking. But let me just go through the problems that this is now caused. You have an orange flash on the stairs. Were you told of that? Have we ever heard that before from, I mean, from any source in the government, we were told there is nothing there. Clearly, friends and foes both looked at that video and said, there is nothing there. CBS had some analysts look into it, and they're like, well, what's that orange thing moving up? That's obviously a person. Okay?

I thought there was nothing there. Problem number two, they knew this right away. They knew it right away. And then they dismissed it as if it was nothing. Three, there's no time of death. The medical examiner said, because they took the body down, he couldn't tell a time of death. Now, all my criminal CSI knowledge comes from television. And I know reality is not television.

But you can't tell me that because you move the body, You couldn't put your hand on the corpse and go, okay, that was an hour ago, or that was last night at 10.30. Just the body cooling would have told you something. The medical examiner cannot assign time of death. Well, that's interesting, because if you could say it happened between 10 and midnight, maybe we would have been able to narrow things down. But because it could have been done at 3 o'clock in the morning. Could have been done at 545.

They walked in at 6.30. He might have done it at 629. That's bull crap, and you and I know it. And then the worst thing is, they don't remember the noose. Nobody remembers taking the noose off. Nobody remembers seeing a noose. And then another noose, which they have determined, was not the noose used, just magically appears in the cell later.

excuse me I mean there's just no way to square this circle there's no way to do it you cannot with any credibility say yeah this guy committed suicide now it may turn out that he committed suicide but not until you lock all these other things down who put the freaking news

the cameras weren't working at 630 the cameras weren't working at 630 they were turned off okay and they said well One of the first things you would have done is, how come do we see anybody walk in? No, those cameras weren't on. At 632, somebody would have said, turn the damn cameras on, right?

Nobody saw anything. Nobody, who came into the room? Who, that would have been a crime scene? Who had access to the room to throw a noose inside? My God. Gosh, there's a reason why we don't believe the government. There is a reason. And it's this kind of crap.

You're listening to the best of Glenn Beck. Need a little more? Check out the full show podcasts. Anywhere you download podcasts. I have a lot to say about Bitcoin and why it's going down. I don't fully understand it yet. At a long conversation with somebody yesterday, and this is their deal. And I need to fully understand it.

Hopefully I'll have it by Monday. because if if I understand it correctly, that's a really big deal, a really, really big deal. So we'll talk about that on Monday. I don't want you to worry while Bad Bunny is on, you know, you got to be able to enjoy that. Not a chance in the world. Hope you're going to TPSA to their YouTube site to watch the halftime show. Anyway, George A.I. is something that I'm building, and people don't understand. yet because it's a year away from completion. But I want to give you a piece of what the first thing

that's going to start coming out. I may even release this example. But first, it's going to come out, you know, in text. Then it will come out so you can ask it questions and it will help you teach or help you learn and it will speak in the language, whatever language around the world, but also, you know, the age-appropriate language. This is proprietary. This is not chat GPT. That's really important to understand. This is completely different.

The goal is to get you to be able to talk to it and be able to say, hey, I need a lesson plan to teach, you know, the founding of America. I need, you know, I have my kids in the car for 15 minutes a day, so I need a 12-minute lesson plan every day. that has certain goals and here are the goals and it'll teach. And then the next step is it will listen and ask questions at the end. And if your kids aren't getting it,

it will then revamp the next episode so it will be able to solidify that lost principle on there before you really move on. That's the goal. This is why I am building the torch. This is why I'm asking you to join me at the torch because it's very expensive, but it is worth it. And I think this is going to be an incredible tool. Nobody is where we are.

Nobody has access to what we have, except for the federal government. Anyway, so let me give you an example. We were just talking to Erica, this mom, who was in Washington State. She had to talk to her 13-year-old daughter, and I don't know how that went, but let's just say you're in that situation. what do you do when you get home what do you do according to george a i this is how you do it um your child sees a protest um when you're talking to them don't start with right or wrong don't start with who's right start with what are they trying to do and erika said she her daughter

didn't even know what they were trying to do okay so let's just talk about it let's take you step by step what are they trying to do okay they're trying they think something's wrong and they're trying to make change happen. Okay. How does change happen in America? Does change happen through protests? Then walk through how the change happens. City Council, school board, legislature, courts, you know, Congress, et cetera, et cetera.

And show them that yelling gets attention, but the process is what actually changes things. yelling just gets people's attention. And then it's critical the lesson is not to protest. It's really important in that first time you're talking about this is to say they have a right to protest. However, there are things that you don't do in protests, okay? But the lesson is not to say protesting is bad. It's that protest without participation is nothing more than theater. They didn't teach you anything about the process.

Civics teaches patience, not to. not passivity. Now, George said, teach about Jesus. I'm going to add MLK and Gandhi, because that's where they got the principles of Jesus, it was reconciliation. You ask your kid, how do you have a country if you can't bring people together? What happens if we can never decide, do we have a country? The answer is no. So if we want to have a country, we can't have losers and winners. We have to reconcile, but reconcile with what? You got to reconcile with the truth. Okay.

So let's go through the problem. This is the critical thinking, how to teach your kids critical thinking. Agreement in a society is rare, okay? And reconciliation is essential. It has to happen. If a society decides that politics produces winners and losers, you know, it eventually treats its citizens as,

enemies to be defeated, not neighbors to be persuaded, and that's what's happening. Everybody's an enemy with one another. That's not self-government. That's a cold civil war. So the question is not how do we win. The question is, how do we get people back using the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Because reconciliation without truth is surrender. truth without reconciliation becomes cruelty so now you're sitting and you've gone through this with your kid and now the catechism part comes teach by questions do you even know what reconciliation is talk to him about that it's not compromise with lies or falsehoods it's the restoration of the relationship of a couple of people after truth has been spoken so what did

Jesus do. He didn't condemn everybody. Did he condemn or did he invite people? And did he do it with the truth? I mean, he used the truth and then left the door open. Go and sin no more. Came after, neither do I condemn you. Did everybody follow him? No. A lot of people walked away. Reconciliation doesn't require universal agreement. Only honest witness. So what's your responsibility as a citizen, a civics part? it's not to convert everybody yours is to peacefully speak the truth with humility without contempt for anyone and without any force

protesting is legal you start using force now you start to get into the place where you're breaking laws and this is the key principle this is where republics live or die Jesus didn't chase crowds he spoke to those who could still hear

and that that matters Not everybody is reachable at the same moment in history. Some people are hardened or intoxicated by ideology or enraged by winning, invested in chaos, whatever. You don't persuade those people with argument. You persuade them only through example, consistency and time. You don't persuade all of them at once. You don't. That's why it is so important to never engage in the kind of stuff that you're seeing them engage in.

because if you're doing the same thing, then they don't notice a difference. And here's how you know who to talk to. Here's the test. If someone can still ask a sincere question, what's a sincere question? A sincere question is, if I give you the answer and you go, wow, that makes sense. And it disagrees with what you say is causing your behavior, but you go, that's, true. You've done your homework. That's actually true. Will that then change you in any way? If I show you that that five-year-old, that story is not what you think it is. If I show that to you,

will you say, oh, wow, okay, I better question some other things. Or will you say, well, it doesn't matter. They're doing it anyway. That's not a sincere person. If they won't change their behavior, Once you speak truth and they're not reachable. If they can't distinguish between truth and power, they're not ready. Jesus called it those who could hear. Let me give you an analogy. Think of truth like a plum line on a construction site. Did you see there's a video going around about these skyscrapers in China

where the walls are coming apart from the floors? They're skyscrapers. And you can put your head on the window and look, you can put your head on the window and look because they're separate from all of the floors. Nothing is straight, not good. When you put a plum line down, that's to make sure that everything is straight, okay? Gravity just pulls that straight and so you know that's a straight wall. You don't bend the plum line to match the crooked wall and then say, see, it's straight. And you don't smash the wall with the plum line either. You just hang it quietly. You let everybody see what a straight line actually is. Some builders will

adjust. Some might argue that that line is oppressive. Some will walk away. But the building that survives is the one that aligns to the truth, to the plum line, not the one that wins the argument. You can argue about that plum line all you want. Gravity is gravity. It's true. And a republic is exactly the same. One last example. Tell them a story. Imagine a family sitting at a dinner table and half of the family is on one side of the dinner table and the other half is on the other. One side is wrong. Doesn't matter what the topic is. One side is wrong, but they don't know it yet. The other side knows the truth, okay? The other side might be tempted to humiliate the other side. If the right side declares victory and storms out, the family is lost. If the side that's wrong

is indulged, the family collapses into lies and chaos. So, need to be a side. So need to be a lot of the side. either side wins, right? Reconciliation happens when you, the one person, stays seated and calm and says, I'm not going to lie, I'm not just to keep the peace, I will not play this game with you, but I'm not going to abandon you either. And when you're ready, I'm still here. And the truth will still be true. That's how nations heal, slowly, quietly, with scars that you don't hide. this is the goal of the torch to be able to have a tool that you can trust that's not chat GPT

you trust that at all I don't know what's in chat cheap other than everything and I don't want everything influencing so here's a tool that is only based on the founders their words their beliefs their principles the things they wrote things that I know, okay, I can trust that cannot pull anything outside. Can't pull anything from me. Can't pull anything from the left.

It's just their words. And you can ask it questions. How do I teach this? And you get that answer back. And if you can't do it eventually, hopefully in a year or maybe a year from now, it will be able to guide you and the family. you'll be able to sit there and you can ask a question. Wait, I don't understand that, George. He'll explain it again. Then you can take and explain. And then he'd correct you if you're incorrect or encourage you. Yes, that's exactly right. Then ask questions. That's what we have to do. Ask questions. That's the best way to teach. Ask questions.

That's why I've been asking you to join me at the torch. If you want to help me build this, it's expensive. I'm spending a lot of money. six figures every single month just to build this because I believe in it so much. And I don't care. I'll build it by myself. But I'd love your help if you want. If you think it's worth it, it's $10 a month to join the torch. You get all the backstage stuff. You get all the bells and whistles, everything else.

But this is what I'm really trying to do. We're going to be releasing music soon. my first 10 songs on the Bill of Rights. You remember Schoolhouse Rock? Similar to that, but contemporary, that you can just play in the house, play with your kids, they can listen to, and they'll be singing along the five in the first.

There are five rights in the First Amendment. Nobody knows that. Let them just sing along. Just play it in the house. Let them just sing along with it. How many times do you sing songs or have songs running and you have no idea what the words are about? My idea is why don't we make the words help us instead of hurt us? Why not put words in there that are not goofy and stupid but actually just sound like a normal song that will teach history, do these things?

That's one of the things that we're working on that. Some of that's coming out soon. But join us at George. You just said go to glenbeck.com slash torch. Glennbeck.com slash torch and join us. 60% of the vans on Amazon come to vander independent, like SAC Magic.

Hello, here Camille, our compresses chode-fraud are fabricated here even, with the tissue that we're chisette and the avouin that push to Sagnet. Our presence on Amazon enlarge our basin of clientele

to the world entire. Sack Magic, is the compress that all the world prefer. At from here, Grandi. Trouvee to

little enterprises like that our on on earth.