The Glenn Beck Program - Best of The Program | Guest: John Stossel | 9/28/21

Episode Date: September 28, 2021

A podcast from the New Yorker floated the idea of getting destructive to fight climate change. Glenn and Stu read through the eight stages of genocide, which hit a little too close to home. Journalist John Stossel joins to discuss his lawsuit against Facebook. 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 the world entire. Trouve of little enterprises like the other on our own.com. Hey, welcome to the program. We kind of went over what was happening

with the Afghanistan and General Millie hearings today. We had a lot of that also the Jedi Mind tricks that we were doing. You know, you're not, Jedi calling people a Jedi if you are trying to promote justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion

is a bad thing. And I think we all know this. I think we all know this because of the ablest dropes in Star Wars. That whole segment was a roller coaster ride. Okay. So this started with Stu and I talking about Sodom and Gamora and scientists have found that a space rock hit Sodom and Gomorrah. and vaporized everybody.

And I was asking the question whether or not he wanted to be vaporized. I went to the Jedi mindset being problematic by five different scientists in Scientific American. And Stu provided a few answers, a few answers. And you'll hear them on today's podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. If you are in Australia, if you don't get vaccinated, you're going to lose your freedom. That's great for Australia.

Here's the problem. In America, we have this little thing called the Declaration of Independence. And governments are instituted among men to protect those freedoms. And when a government becomes hostile to those freedoms, it is the people's right, and it is their duty to throw off the chains of that and create a government. a new government that is not hostile to those freedoms. So in other words, you can't break away because you want to have slavery. But I think it's pretty clear you can break away if you want to just live by the Constitution

and the Declaration of Independence because the old government started forgetting about the whole freedom thing. Well, I hate to even say that because people are going to say, He's advocating violence. He's saying we should go into a civil war, which I'm not saying at all. Oh my gosh, these people on the right, they're so dangerous. I know. Let's do something safe, shall we?

Let's just read the New Yorker and listen to their podcast. Because they talk about books and things like that. And they had Andreas Mom on, who is really, great. I just want you to listen. Here's cut one. Andreas Malm is a professor at Lund University in Sweden. He studies the relationship between climate change and capitalism. And he advocates for far more drastic action that we've seen so far. His recent book, How to Blow Up a Pipeline, is a bit more nuanced than the title suggests,

but at its core, he really does want environmental activists to rethink their commitment to nonviolence and embrace tactics of sabotage. Stop, just a second. Let me, let me get this straight. So, Stu, I believe we have to discuss this like this.

I believe when he says it's more nuanced than the title, uh, uh, really kind of leads you to believe how to blow up a pipeline. It doesn't sound like it really does it, that it is more nuanced because he then just went and said, uh, but it's more nuanced than,

you know, the title would seem, but he really does want people to think about, you know, dumping the non-violence thing. Well, Glenn, the nuance that's associated with the title, how to blow up a pipeline, just, of course, indicates that there are far more things that you can blow up. Oh, not just a pipeline. You can blow up a pipeline. Thank you. A tanker ship.

I can see things more clearly now that you speak like this. You could blow up a bunch of school children who exhale CO2. All these things are options for the future of environmentalism. Thank you very much. Back to the podcast. I spoke with Andreas Mom last week. Andreas, you've been a climate activist now for a long time. And in 2007, you were part of a Swedish group that started deflating the tires on SUVs.

Tell me about that. What was the impulse and how did it work? Yeah, so what we did was we went through rich neighborhoods and picked out SUVs. This was in the early career of SUVs when they were still remarkable on streets before they had become completely ubiquitous. And it's very easy to deflate the tires of a car. You just unscrew the valve and you insert a little gravel or a piece of stone or something like that and you screw the valve back on. And then the air will be out of the tire in a couple of hours. So this was no property destruction.

It didn't damage anything. It created an inconvenience for the owners of SUVs. Okay, all right, all right. So this began his journey towards civil disobedience cut to. What was the moment that you realized that your next book would have to be about targeted sabotage and why? That moment was very much the summer of 2018, which was unprecedented in northern Europe. for the wildfires and the drought and the heatwave. And during that summer, I felt panic and desperation, as a lot of people did.

This was the summer that led Greta Thunberg to start her later very famous school strike movement. And that sort of changed the picture because in 2019, all the way up to the outbreak of the pandemic, the climate movement of the global north reached its zenith of mobilization. Really, its peak of popular force out of the streets. So the book became a product of the moment of 2019, but it's also a core for escalation, a call for the movement to diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience. Right. Okay. So here's the left now in the New Yorker and on the podcast. Talking about how we, you know, it's not so bad to put rocks into people's airbags with gravel, otherwise known as gravel, and let the air out.

It's an inconvenience, sure, but it doesn't do any harm. But then now we really see that we really have to go away from nonviolence because it's really not working. So here he is on blowing up a pipeline. What actions are you recommending for the movement? Well, I am recommending that the movement continues with mass action and civil disobedience, but also opens up for property destruction. So I'm not saying we should stop strikes or square occupations or demonstrations of the usual kind.

I'm all in favor of that. But I do think we need to step up because so little has changed and so many investments are still being poured into new fossil fuel projects. So I am in favour of destroying machines, property, not harming people. That's a very important distinction. And I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways, or it can be neutralised in a very gentle fashion as when we deflated the SUVs, or in a more spectacular fashion as in potentially blowing up a pipeline that's under construction.

That's something that people have done. So you are recommending blowing up a pipeline. You use the phrase intelligence sabotage. What does intelligence sabotage look like in this context? Let me give you a very concrete example. Right now, Total, the largest single private company headquartered in France, is constructing what will be the world's longest heated oil pipeline in Uganda and Tanzania. And displacing in that process about 100,000 farmers,

all for the sake of carrying even more oil to the world market to pour fuel on the global fire. If people in that region were to attack the construction equipment, blow up the pipeline before it's completed, I would be all in favour of that. I don't see how that property damage could be considered morally illegitimate, given what we know of the consequences of such a project. So the ends justify the means is what he's saying here.

Remember, you are the dangerous one. We're just a bunch of journalists at the New Yorker that are just exploring different ideas. Today's idea blowing things up and destroying property. Very, very, very different than killing people, of course. You know, nobody was killed in the Capitol. well, some one person was killed, but that was by a police officer, but police officers in this case are all good and should never be questioned. But the property was destroyed there in the Capitol, and that is completely different than blowing up a pipeline. And, Glenn, I will note for the listeners that machines don't run on their own.

the people who show up to work at these facilities are part of the machinery. They are basically parts of the machine. And if they are parts of the machine, they also could be destroyed. And that sounds like a machine to me, quite honestly. Yeah, working on machines. If they are not there, then these environmental cataclysms will not occur. So obviously killing people who work for these companies at the site. And honestly, those people wouldn't show up if they were not paid.

So the executives of the company are also fair targets. And to be clear, maybe the banks. Well, they fund anyone who works at a bank, I think, would fall. Wall Street would be a good target. Any shareholder of a company like this, absolutely. What about the companies that provide electricity and water to? the banks, to these facilities, they are basically guilty.

Yeah, they're giving aid in comfort to an enemy. What if we killed all people other than us? Well, I think, because we don't, we didn't do these things. We just, I've written out a plan. I've had, yeah, oh yeah, we've had a plan for how to eliminate people for a long time.

Oh, wow. I'm glad you brought this up because, oh, thank good. I've been carrying this around for so long. And, you know, we all know, wink, wink, nod, we're not going to kill people. Oh, my. That's rich. No, it's not rich. Rich bad.

Oh, I'm sorry. Rich is very, very bad. Unless we're the ones that are rich, then it's really, really good. Very good. You know what I mean? Here's cut four. And yet climate activist groups like 350.org and extinction rebellion have made clear that nonviolence is central to their approach.

Do you think that's been a mistake or a tactical error? Yeah, so I have nothing against the tactics employed by these groups. I have very often participated in them myself. What I have a problem with is when Extinction Rebellion and people from 350 and elsewhere say that these are the only things that our movement can ever allow itself to engage in, as in what we are doing is as far as we will ever go. We'll never escalate beyond this. And I think that idea, this dogmatic commitment to non-violence,

is based on a faulty history writing or understanding of social struggles over history, because it's based on the idea that the only thing that has ever worked for social movements is to stay completely peaceful. And that just isn't the case. Most social movements that have struggled against overwhelming odds, against enemies that have been very powerful, have diversified and used a number of different tactics ranging into property destruction and confrontation with the police.

You saw this during the uprising after the murder of George Floyd where there was tremendous property destruction and conquering and burning down police stations in Minneapolis and things like that. That was an integral part of an uprising and brought millions of people into the streets of the US than any other in American history. Wow, that is amazing. It's weird that the left seems to. know that.

But wait, I was told earlier. Well, it was largely nonviolent. Largely nonviolent. Almost, I don't think there was any. Was there violence? What I saw was people that were committed to a cause. By the way, the FCC needs to investigate its own history of racism and examine how its policy choices and actions have harmed black people and other communities of color.

Now, this is coming from, uh, this is coming from. this is coming from a left-wing group that is funded by the Center for American Progress and George Soros's Open Society Foundations. They're wonderful. They're called the free press. You might remember them. But they said, what do we have to do? Do we have to, how many, are we going to have to just shoot Republicans to reclaim our

democracy? Now, you might think that that's violent, but it's not being covered in the press at all, even though that's a letter they wrote to the FCC, are we going to have to shoot Republicans to reclaim our democracy? That is really not so important, okay, because they have a reason to do that. Things are really, really tough. And, you know, they're not just saying,

let's shoot Republicans. They're saying, we have to reshape the media, and that is so important. And if we can't get people to move, then maybe we should shoot Republicans. And it's very nuanced. It's very nuanced. We have been telling people that they're not allowed to have firearms. So how will we be shooting all the Republicans?

We'll have. We can have them, right? Oh, yes, we can have them. We have them. And they can have them. That's right. That's right. That's right.

We're part of the elite. I forgot. Yes, okay. this is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Play a rant from Joe Rogan that I just think is inspiring. Now, he's in trouble for this because somebody made a video of it and then put some images to it that include the Nazis, and they're not happy, so Joe Rogan must pay.

But listen to his words. As soon as you give politicians power, any kind of power that didn't exist previously. If they can figure out a way to force you into carrying something that lets you enter businesses or lets you do this or lets businesses open, historically, they are not going to give that power up. They find new reasons to use. Oh, goodbye. We have to protect those freedoms at all cost, whether you agree with people's choices or not,

because it is the foundation that this country was founded on. Freedom. This idea of freedom, there's so many people that think it's frivolous, it's not important, it's not the main thing that we should be focused on, but it is the literal structure that allows this country to be so amazing. Every single country that's ever existed other than the United States, up until 1776, every country that has ever existed was run by dictators, all of them. This is the first experiment in self-government that actually worked, and he created the greatest superpower of the world's ever known.

It created the greatest cultural machine, the greatest machine of art and creativity and innovation right here. And how did it do that? It did it through freedom. And as soon as you see something, anything that comes along and inhibits your freedom, you should be very cautious about that. It should be very suspicious. Because anything that comes along that can inhibit your freedom is,

By definition, anti-American. That's horrible, isn't it? That's horrible. Now, why is he in trouble? Why is he in trouble? Because he says, you know, that anybody's trying to take your rights away. And as he's saying that, images of the Holocaust. And that apparently can't be done.

Right. That's their big line, I guess. The group of people that told you that Donald Trump was, Hitler for the past five years. Now suddenly has problem with Holocaust comparisons. That is a, uh, that's an interesting new discovery from the

left. I don't know how they came across it. Wow. And by the way, we should point out that Joe Rogan didn't compare. Uh, no. That at all. He, that's, that's the, who the filmmaker who, uh, who put

images to his words used some Nazi, uh, Nazi And a lot of other images too from dictators. From dictators. Whenever anyone starts to say, you know, certain things, those are signs that you're on the wrong path. Right. The wrong path is the best way to put this. Because at the end of the path, if the end of the path is Nazi Germany, you don't take two steps down that path.

You don't take five steps down that path. You take zero steps down that path. You avoid the path at all. No one is saying that currently we are in the middle of murdering millions of people. However, when government takes control, sometimes bad people wind up with the power behind that government. And they are able to use those controls against the people. I will give you, for the left, an example of someone that might concern you with lots and lots of power. His name's Donald Trump. Remember how much?

You remember how you were saying he was Hitler? Well, what if he had all of this power? What if you gave him all of that power? What if this person that you've been saying is Adolf Hitler for five years? What if he had all of this power? How would you feel about it? This is why it doesn't matter about the man. It doesn't matter who the person is.

Doesn't matter the party. The country is designed so that no matter how crappy your president is, they can't do those things. Right. No matter how crappy Congress or the Senate or the Supreme Court or anybody. You can't do it. But it requires all of those people to stand with the Constitution of the United States. And they're not.

And they're not doing it because of their own power and their own money, et cetera, et cetera. Or their own arrogance. They think they know better. And that's where dictators usually start. They just know better than everyone else. and that's what we were designed to stop and we're the only one designed to stop it now they say you know just because it's like a like itler doesn't mean it's going to end in the holocaust well okay but i don't really think that we should be going down the german road in any way shape or form uh yeah it may not

lead to the ovens but i don't think i want to even go down that road to at all. I mean, maybe we'll have some strutal, but that's as deep into Germany as I care to go. But if you look at the, this was developed by Genocide Watch, along with the United States Department of State, the eight stages of genocide. And here they are. So would you say that we want to go down this road at all, or if we want to make sure that it never happened? again, we shouldn't do any of these things. Here's step one. People are divided into them and us. All right, well, that's been done. That's done. Okay. So step one on our road to the Holocaust has already been done.

Step two, symbolization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups. To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally prohibited as hate speech. Okay. Well, I don't think that that star has been sewn on to anybody. I think the hate symbol that has been given by the left is the Make America Great Hat. Anything that identifies you as a Trump supporter, you are now part of a group that it's okay to hate. would you agree with that? Yeah.

I would say that's true. I mean, you look at, I mean, there's a, there was an episode of a curb beer enthusiasm from this past year where Larry David decided

he didn't want to talk to people so he wore a MAGA hat so that people wouldn't talk to him because he knew, no one would want to interact with him if he had it on. I mean, I think that that's obviously a comedic way of telling it,

but I think that that's kind of true. I think it is large swaths of the country. Oh yeah. Large swaths of the country. The other symbol that is okay to hate is not wearing a mask. If you wear a mask, you're fine. You can scream at the person. You can scream at the person that's not wearing a mask. Remember we had that whole, you know, punch a Nazi movement for a while there. It's, you know, related to the Antifa stuff where, you know, you see someone who you quote unquote think is a fascist. It's okay to punch them, right? It's okay to attack them because they're, we're anti-fascists. So there is definitely a movement and a powerful one.

So we're on that road. Yeah, but we're not there. We're not officially assigning a symbol, but the symbols exist. Discrimination is the third one. Law or cultural power. Law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights, segregation, or apartheid laws, denial of voting rights. Okay.

Well, law or cultural power. We have that denying groups, full civil rights or segregation. We are now in our colleges segregating. We're segregating instead of black people out. We're now segregating white people out. New York City is most younger African Americans are not allowed to go into restaurants. Yes. You got it on that direction.

So you have multiple places there. I mean, certainly not full civil rights. have eroded to that level. But again, do you want to go down this road? You're being told that their patients is running thin and you will not be able to do things if you don't have the vaccine. They are, that's definitely, again, that's not full civil rights, but there are, there are problems.

Right. Step four, we're halfway to the ovens. We're halfway to the ovens. No. Well, you're saying this is half of this list. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

But we haven't done all the things so far on the list. We've done some of them. We're on the road. We're on the road on all of them so far. Right. Four, dehumanization. One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.

Already done. That's done. I don't know that that's, well, it's done. By some. By some. Like, for example, you watch Jimmy Kimmel the other night saying, like, let the people who were unvaccinated die in the hospitals. Yeah, it's not just Demi Kimmel.

You have doctors saying that. You have some. But I mean, I don't know that that's the entire society or the entire apparatus of the government saying that. But it is, it's becoming all too popular. Yes. Becoming more popular. Organization.

This is where it, this is where the metal meets the road or the, the, the, the rubber meets the road. You have terrible tires. Yeah, I know. You have the first four. And those can be done. culturally or through official means. The four of these have been done culturally.

Now you get into organization. Genocide is always organized. Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. I think we're going through that now with our military and being trained on CRT. And, you know, they're out searching for people who are Trump supporters because they're radicals, etc, et cetera, et cetera. It's the beginning of it or what could be the beginning of it. Do you disagree with that?

I mean, I see what you're saying. I mean, the idea that the emphasis on domestic terrorism is a problem. I mean, does that mean, does that mean, we have organized militias going after? No, no, no. I'm not saying that. I'm saying this is the beginning. The training is beginning to see things as. parts of the country, however you vote, or if you won't play along with the woke game,

you're a problem. You're an extremist. That's the beginning of the training. Then polarization, hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. But we're already doing that right now in this program. That's what we do every day. No, remember, I mean, I think this is coming from, this is aimed at the victim group. and I think that propaganda is coming out already. Preparation, mass killing is planned. Thank God, I don't think that's happening. Persecution, that's when people are rounded up

and put into ghettos or concentration camps and then extermination. By the way, the 10th step, the perpetrators deny they committed any crime. How hard that must be. You know, we've always seen this and we saw this in Germany. uh and we still see this in germany there there you know people like well i didn't have anything i well no i we didn't do anything wrong that was just that was what was going on we

didn't know how hard it must be for the people who lived through that and know their new their neighbors did know i mean how many times do we have people denying things like for instance right now the democrats not anywhere in the scale but the democrats denying that they were the ones that were holding kids out of school. But they were the ones they now claim they were fighting for the schools to be open. It was the evil Republicans that were trying to keep the schools closed.

I mean, how do you survive that? How do you make that so your brain just doesn't explode? And I'll say, like, as important it is to warn about these roads, it's also important to note, you know, like, it doesn't. Big things. It does. Things are standing in the way still. Big things.

We have a constitutional structure that, stops this. We have great people in the military and our in our police that stop this. And like, look, I'll be honest, you know, everyday life, it seems normal. I mean, like, these things escalate slowly, but these problems are problems that you, you get rid of now. Now. So you don't worry about these bigger problems. Correct. Correct. And as Edwin Black told me, um, these problems we have, this means the Holocaust may never, ever, come to America. But it also means that we've done a lot of the work where it could happen tomorrow. We just have to be aware of when you're polarizing, when you're dividing, when you

are excluding people, when you're denying the humanity of people, you are on the same road. And once enough people are convinced of those things, then the government can make the rest of it happen quickly. You're listening to the best. of the Glenn Beck program. 19-time Emmy winner John Stossel hailed by the Dallas Morning News as the most consistently thought-provoking TV reporter of our time.

And then he figured out that regulation causes more problems and decided to report on how the government is really screwing things up. And that's when things went bad for John, but went great for America. John Stossel joins us now. Hi, John. How are you? Oh, I wish I had that much

I think you have had a massive impact, John. I think you've had a massive impact on America. You know, I've watched you for years and years, and the things that you exposed, I think changed a lot of people open their eyes. Not, you know, not all of the, you know, party people in New York and all the people that, you know, are fashionable, but I think a lot of regular Americans.

Why are you suing Facebook now? which but a big one is back. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So how are you planning on going up against? I mean, Facebook has more money than God. You have good attorneys. I mean, what are the chances of one guy standing up against them that you win?

In my case, it wasn't just about an unfair. Yeah. Well, thank you for doing that. Tell me a little bit about. what your thoughts are on the virus and the vaccine and all of this. America is so strangely split on this because it became all about politics. So what are your thoughts on that, John? Yep.

They're wising up and saying, well, acquire natural immunity. And that's the only way to move on. What do you think about how Americans and the world have reacted to this? I mean, I remember when it was. breaking out in Beijing, and if you remember right, there were times that they were welding people into their homes. They were sealing these iron doors so people couldn't leave their homes. And I remember saying on the air, this would never have. We would never put up with this kind of

stuff here in America. We're two years into this and we're still putting up with it. What happened to us, John? No. Yeah, but I mean, if you want to use that logic, then we should take every car off the road. We should take every pool out of every backyard. We should take every steak knife out of every dishwasher. John Stossel, always good to talk to you, sir. When do you go to court, do you know? Who's from now? That's our legal system.

Good to talk to you, John. Thanks a lot. You too. Yeah, John Stossel suing Facebook over defamation. And he's absolutely right. And that climate group has been responsible for getting us banned or having our hands slapped or whatever it actually turned out to be. Remember, there was something.

They were claiming that we said something that we never said. We never said. But we quoted something that was accurate that came out of a study where in that study, they said in that study this particular quote, we didn't even know it was in the study. We had nothing to do with that quote. We weren't quoting it. we weren't even holding up the study.

We were just using that as a footnote on where we got that particular information. All the information in the study was accurate. That quote is what they disagreed with. And they attributed it to us, said we were saying that. We never said that. Yeah. The problem with a lot of these groups is they're just sloppy, let alone ideological and antagonistic to conservative values. They're just bad at their jobs too, which is a pretty big problem when you're talking about

the livelihood of a business you know i mean you know john stossel you know as he said he releases a new video every tuesday um you know like when you throw them off of off of these platforms how do you how do people see that how do people see his work you don't you don't you don't