Donald Trump’s victory is a beacon of hope across the world



Millions of people around the world were holding their breath last night. I've talked to Europeans to try to get a bead on what’s happening over there. There are Europeans like you and me who are frustrated with their own globalist, tyrannical bureaucracies telling them how to live and what to believe. If Donald Trump didn’t win, where in the world would they look to for hope that this madness would stop? Which leader could they count on to stand in the gap against their globalist elites? They, too, had a lot on the line in our election last night.

But today brings hope, not only in America but for freedom-loving people worldwide.

We need to restore the balance of power in the federal government — the way America’s founders intended.

We know Trump is going to stop the madness at the southern border. He is going to deport serial criminals and sex offenders who entered our country under Biden and Harris' watch. The media will try to convince you that deportations are something akin to Hitler, but they turn a blind eye to their Democratic predecessors who have deported even more illegal immigrants than Trump. In fact, Bill Clinton deported more illegal immigrants than any president in U.S. history, shipping 11 million out of the country in the 1990s. In contrast, Trump deported less than a million during his first term, which is even less than the 1.8 million under the Obama administration.

Deportations of criminals who are in our country illegally is critical to protecting the safety of the American people, a practice that has been exercised by presidents for decades.

Our friends across the pond have been witnessing the destruction of their societies since EU globalists opened Europe's floodgates to immigrants in 2015. Crime is rampant, communities governed by Sharia law are multiplying, and their social programs are being pushed to a breaking point. Tuesday night gave them reason to hope. America is going to say, "No more," and perhaps this will be the rallying cry for our European brothers-in-arms to stand up as well.

The election was also a major blow to draconian globalist organizations. The United States will no longer be beholden to the Paris Climate Accords. Our nation will no longer give credence to the World Economic Forum. We won’t give the World Health Organization a single penny more. All these very well-planned globalist initiatives are going away.

But Trump can't act alone. Thank God we won the Senate. This is an incredible step forward, but for these big plans to come to fruition, we need the House. If the Republicans — actual freedom-loving, Constitution-abiding Republicans — don't have the House, you’re not going to be able to get things done except by executive order, which we don’t want to do. One reason things were so bad during the last four years is that Joe Biden simply signed executive orders to reverse everything that Trump accomplished, completely bypassing Congress. We have to do it the right way. We need to restore the balance of power in the federal government — the way America’s founders intended.

One of the most hopeful things Trump said Tuesday night is that we’re going to enter a new golden era in America. I believe him. He could have said that in 2020, and I wouldn't have believed him as much as I believe him now. That’s because Trump now has a team of people that's not exclusively comprised of politicians.

Bringing in somebody like Elon Musk is one of the most hopeful things for our country I've witnessed in my lifetime. I know that guy can cut spending. I know he will find the waste in our government because he's not a government guy — he's a businessman. He's going to slash all the redundancies that have been justified by career bureaucrats for decades. We have a chance of cutting our budget and creating a reasonable one.

Trump’s promise to cut regulations also spells hope for our country. He cut more regulation in his first term than any other president, but Biden and Harris have since added a mountain of rules. He will have his work cut out for him, but he will get it done. He must if this economy will roar again.

We could have a true rebirth of freedom and the American dream, and I find that really hopeful. So many Americans are tired of worrying about their kids struggling and seeing Bidenomics and regulation yank from their children's hands the possibility of the American dream that they attained. Donald Trump is the biggest chance of bringing it back.

Today, I’m filled with hope. Real, tangible hope. And you should be, too.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Global elites fear America’s First Amendment — and here’s why



At a recent World Economic Forum summit, John Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate and Biden-Harris administration official, criticized the role of the First Amendment in limiting the government’s ability to censor social media. “You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry complained. “But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”

Kerry’s unguarded remarks might seem surprising, but they reflect a sentiment common among the managerial class that dominates much of the Western world. The unrestricted flow of information has become an existential threat for governments worldwide, which now rush to establish sovereignty in digital spaces to maintain control.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them.

The era of mass democracy coincided with the rise of mass media, and this alignment was no accident. As nations rapidly industrialized, vast countries with diverse regional cultures, like the United States, suddenly found ways to connect and unify. Innovations such as trains and telegraphs, followed by telephones, radio, interstate highways, and television, allowed information and people to travel vast distances quickly.

For the first time, governments could centralize economic coordination and effectively disseminate propaganda. Every state sought to capitalize on this. While the approach differed between the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the importance of centralization just as much as Hitler or Stalin did. The 20th century became a century of scale, where nations that lagged in the race for mass communication and control lost their sovereignty to those that succeeded.

In a system where popular sovereignty grants political legitimacy, a ruling class that aims to maintain power must control public opinion. Establishing compulsory public education with a unified curriculum is a good start, but gaining control over the limited number of television and radio stations effectively seals the deal. A consistent narrative across news and entertainment can steer public opinion in a desired direction. While this method doesn’t reach the level of top-down totalitarianism seen in the Soviet Union, it proves to be a more resilient form of control.

The growth in the number of media outlets did little to change this dynamic. The high cost of operation kept the ability to shape public opinion in the hands of a select group of wealthy oligarchs. The political orientation and selection criteria of journalism schools ensured that those who gathered, wrote, and distributed news held similar views. The public could choose from a variety of news sources and formats, but these options often led back to the same approved narrative.

In a media landscape that seemed to offer endless choices, people essentially received only one perspective. The ruling class maintained control by retaining authority over the flow of information.

The internet disrupted the traditional soft-power model. The digital world's decentralized nature made it difficult for any single oligarchic class to control information distribution. Initially, this posed no major issue because the internet was unfamiliar and complex, making it hard for the average person to access. While tech-savvy enthusiasts might have engaged with unapproved ideas on obscure message boards, most voters struggled just to access email through America Online.

But as digital natives matured and became adept with technology, social media emerged as a platform where anyone could go viral. This shift unleashed uncontrolled narratives into the political landscape, disrupting established powers.

The United States government quickly recognized the internet's disruptive potential. Thanks to its technological advancements and sophisticated intelligence operations, the United States was among the first to use the internet and social media to incite revolutions against rival regimes. Media shapes the behavior of the masses, and any government that relies on public opinion must control the information people consume.

Today, every modern government understands this reality. In the United States, however, the enduring protections around free speech make it especially challenging for the ruling elite to maintain that control.

Governments worldwide are racing against the forces of decentralization, aiming to establish digital sovereignty. Like the Roman roads, which sped up travel within the ancient empire but also facilitated barbarian invasions, the digital age presents both opportunities and threats. Modern governments face this challenge, but those not dependent on public approval have an edge. For example, China can more easily assert control over its digital landscape, often channeling all economic activity and communication through a single, state-mandated platform.

Western democracies, however, must tread more carefully when imposing controls. Yet, as we’ve seen in the United Kingdom, democratic governments can still wield significant power. After riots erupted following a mass stabbing incident involving British children, Labor Prime Minister Keir Starmer swiftly enacted draconian censorship measures, even imprisoning citizens for retweeting anti-immigration posts. In the United States, leaders have tried to sidestep First Amendment protections by forming “public-private partnerships,” pressuring social media companies to carry out censorship on their behalf. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter disrupted this system, creating at least one platform where information flows with relative freedom.

It’s crucial to recognize that the regime’s influence extends beyond formal government entities. The American ruling class has leveraged state power, media, and the nonprofit sector to build an industry around combating “misinformation and disinformation.” This censorship apparatus pushes the boundaries of what a democratic government can achieve through soft power, yet it has not fully succeeded in silencing dissent.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them. Although Americans remain deeply divided on most issues, the right to free speech stands as one of the country’s few shared values. This right faces increasing threats, with the state conditioning many citizens to view the First Amendment as “flexible.” Yet, the belief in free speech remains a powerful barrier to government overreach. Figures like John Kerry see the First Amendment as a significant obstacle to their globalist ambitions for control, making it a right that is undeniably worth defending.

Americans' privacy in jeopardy as Congress pushes digital ID task force, 3 privacy-related bills



House Democrat Rep. Bill Foster (Ill.) is part of three separate bills that push digital identification on Americans through legislation.

The Illinois congressman first announced the Improving Digital Identity Act in September 2020, stating on Twitter then that "it's time the United States catches up with the developed world on digital identity technology."

Citing the benefits of a "bipartisan" bill, Foster said it had become "vitally important to ramp up safeguards to protect against identity theft and fraud " so that businesses and consumers could have confidence in their online transactions.

In a bipartisan manner, members of Congress appear to be collecting evidence to bolster their argument for why digital identification should be required.

Apparently, this can only be done through digital ID.

Foster has been relentless about this bill, reintroducing it in 2021 and again in 2024, Reclaim the Net reported.

According to Foster's website, the bill asks for the creation of a Digital Identity Task Force made up of federal, state, and local representatives. The task force would develop methods for government agencies to "validate" and "protect" the identities of individuals online, including "tools for verification."

This, of course, means government-issued digital IDs and government-operated verification programs.

The task force would also determine whether a "fee-based model" for verification programs would be required.

The bill, H.R.4258, comes with an estimated $50 million price tag over five years to develop the digital ID. It was originally co-sponsored by 10 Democrats and three Republicans, including Georgia's Barry Loudermilk (R), Rhode Island's James Langevin (D), and New York Rep. John Katko (R).

— (@)

In September 2024, Foster introduced another digital ID bill to "establish a Government-wide approach to improving digital identity, and for other purposes."

The text for H.R. 9783 had yet to be submitted at the time of this publication.

In June 2024, Foster co-sponsored Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins' bill on the same topic.

H.R. 8658, the Emerging Digital Identity Ecosystem Report Act of 2024, asked for a report from TSA on "digital identity ecosystems."

The report will include the benefits and risks of digital identities as they relate to homeland security in the United States.

Bipartisanly, members of Congress appear to be collecting evidence to bolster their argument for requiring digital identification. The most popular reasons congressmen have given in their bill texts so far are tightening national security, securing online transactions, and preventing identity theft.

Digital ID has long been a topic of discussion at the World Economic Forum, the yearly event where society's elites meet to decide which policy proposals to pursue in their jurisdictions.

Since at least 2020, the WEF has advocated for a digital ID system to help society's most vulnerable members.

"A digital ID system allowed Chile rapidly to pre-enroll millions of new beneficiaries in social programs," the organization wrote.

In 2023, the WEF said it was "difficult or impossible" for the roughly 850 million people who don't have ID to "fully engage with society." This, according to the WEF, showcases a perfect reason to implement a cost-efficient, paperless ID system.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

World Economic Forum targets Thailand



There's an unlikely new front in the war between globalist elites and ordinary citizens: the tranquil shores of Thailand.

Every year, tens of thousands of Westerners flock to this tropical escape, seeking a break from their own chaotic realities. Sure, some come for the wild nights and debauchery, but many more are here for the stunning beaches, the fantastic food, the rich traditions, and the warmth of the Thai people.

According to Hart, the globalists view Thailand as a 'throwback' in need of reform. 'Thailand was never colonized, and therefore, her national psyche is stronger than that of many other countries,' he points out.

For these travelers, Thailand represents a peaceful refuge from the madness back home. But as American legal expert Benjamin Hart points out, not even paradise is safe from the insidious reach of the one-world advocates.

Hart first came to Thailand in 2007. After teaching in Korea during the height of some notable wars, he was looking for something different. A chance encounter led him to Thailand, where he found himself working on immigration cases, often involving Thai women and U.S. military personnel.

“I came here while the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were in full swing,” he recalls. What started as an impromptu escape quickly turned into something much deeper — a real love for his new home. After doing this for well over a decade, he naturalized as a Thai citizen, married the woman of his dreams, and thought he had finally found his place in the world.

But paradise appears to be fading and fast.

“My love of Thailand is why I find the influence of the WEF so troubling,” Hart tells Align.

For the uninitiated, the World Economic Forum wants us to live in a world where we will own nothing and be very happy about owning nothing.

In Thailand, Hart warns that “the WEF possesses a kind of inverted soft power that is as subdued as it is destructive to what most would call ‘traditional’ society.” What was once a haven of personal freedom is now under threat from policies that risk erasing the heart of Thai culture, stripping a proud nation of its unique features.

Geostrategic significance

Hart’s alarm bells started ringing after the formation of a new coalition government brought concerning changes. “The attempt to bring in the so-called ‘Digital Wallet’ handout is deeply concerning,” he says. In a country where cash is still king, this shift toward digital currency reeks of greater surveillance and control.

Of all the organizations in the world, no one has pushed harder for the transition to digital cash than the WEF. “I remember thinking how cool it was in 2009 that you could easily transfer cash just by dropping it into an ATM,” Hart reminisces. “No need for ID, just send the funds.” Now, that freedom seems to be slipping away as the government pushes forward with policies that echo the Davos-driven agenda. Digital cash and digital IDs, it's important to note, go hand in hand.

Then came the misguided proposal to deploy Chinese police officers on Thai streets to ease the nerves of Chinese tourists. “I found the idea as preposterous as it was appalling,” Hart says.

Fortunately, public backlash was strong enough to put an end to that plan, but it served as a wake-up call for Hart. “From that point on, I began to question whether everyone involved truly had the interests of the Thai people at heart,” he admits — a sentiment shared by anyone who values genuine independence. Shortly after the police controversy, Srettha Thavisin, the recently ousted prime minister, attended a WEF summit. That was when the alarm bells really started ringing for Hart.

And rightly so.

Thailand holds a critical place in the world, geographically and strategically. As Hart puts it, the country is the “hyphen” in the Indo-Pacific region. Its location makes it a gateway for trade and cultural exchange, a key player for both regional and global dynamics. Its proximity to vital shipping routes like the Strait of Malacca adds to its strategic importance — nearly a third of global trade passes through these waters.

This centrality also means Thailand can influence the power dynamics between the United States, China, and India. It’s a vital hub for multinational corporations looking for access to Asian and Western markets.

With global powers constantly vying for influence, Thailand stands at the crossroads, making its stability essential for regional security.

A sliver of hope

Despite the WEF’s looming presence, Hart remains cautiously optimistic that Thailand can resist these pressures. “If Thailand can shake off the WEF nonsense, I believe the future is very bright,” he says.

That's a big if, though.

According to Hart, the globalists view Thailand as a "throwback" in need of reform. “Thailand was never colonized, and therefore, her national psyche is stronger than that of many other countries,” he points out.

The Thai people's independent streak doesn’t sit well with those in power. “We’re not interested in some supranational body of so-called experts and oligarchs telling us what to do,” Hart insists — a sentiment shared by many who feel threatened by the WEF's plans, not just in Thailand but worldwide.

"On a personal level," Hart adds, "I find the WEF repugnant because the sole ideology of the organization appears to be totalitarianism. There is no 'greater good' being promoted; it's simply totalitarianism and authoritarianism for their own sake."

The very liberties Hart came to Thailand for are now under siege. The reality is that the WEF is attempting to engineer Thai society, slowly but surely. This battle against the creeping globalist influence isn’t just about Thailand’s future — it’s about the future of national identity everywhere.

John Kerry frustrated that First Amendment protects what the World Economic Forum regards as 'disinformation'



Hillary Clinton is apparently not the only failed Democratic presidential candidate presently frustrated over the political establishment's waning narrative control.

Former Biden-Harris climate czar John Kerry noted during a World Economic Forum panel discussion on trade and so-called sustainability last week that the First Amendment remains an obstacle to being able to properly clamp down on so-called disinformation.

According to the WEF's "Global Risks Report 2024," the greatest threats facing humanity over the next two years are "misinformation and disinformation" and bad weather.

Early in the conversation about sustainability, Kerry — to whom President Joe Biden just months ago awarded the Medal of Freedom — bemoaned the loss of a "truth arbiter" in the U.S., noting that "there's no one who defines what the facts really are."

Having an authority equipped to decisively correct would-be climate heresiarchs would apparently help expedite elites' planned transition away from relatively cheap, stable, and reliable fossil fuels.

'If it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, these commies could just roll right over us.'

When responding to a question about "tackling climate misinformation," Kerry said, "Everybody's wrestling with that right now."

"I think the dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing," said the former Obama secretary of state. "It's part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today."

"The referees we used to have to determine what's a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree," continued Kerry, likely cognizant of the humiliation that regime-friendly fact-checkers have suffered in recent months. "And people go and self-select where they go for their news or for their information, and then you get into a vicious cycle."

Kerry told the other World Economic Forum panelists, "You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, et cetera. But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence."

Kerry indicated that in the face of this constitutional obstacle, which Bill Gates recently intimated was only really a notional obstacle, "What we need is to ... win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to to be able to implement change."

Kerry characterized the 2024 election as an opportunity to "break the fever" and "bring ourselves back to a regular order."

The Biden-Harris administration has worked feverishly in recent years to control the flow of information and decide for Americans what qualifies as facts.

During the pandemic, for instance, the Democratic administration leaned on social media companies to suppress and sometimes outright censor Americans' free speech, even if the speech flagged by supposed arbiters of truth — such as those at the Stanford Internet Observatory — was accurate and possibly life-saving.

The desire among Democrats to implement arbiters of truth was not unique to the pandemic.

The Biden-Harris administration also established an outfit in 2022 for the purpose of "countering misinformation related to homeland security." The Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board, which was derided by many as a federal "Ministry of Truth," was fortunately short-lived.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded to Kerry's comments, writing, "John Kerry is correct. The 1st Amendment DOES stand as a major roadblock to them right now."

Country music star John Rich said, "Yea, if it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, these commies could just roll right over us. Thank you Founding Fathers, for knowing someday we'd have tyrants like John Kerry to deal with."

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wrote, "John Kerry and other elite democrats hate the Constitution. They see it as a road block to ruling over people. As a matter of fact, that is why it was written."

The arbiters of truth for whom the former secretary of state longs would likely have taken issue with Argentine President Javier Milei's speech to the UN General Assembly last week, in which he characterized the brand of climate goals and other globalist initiatives favored by Kerry as "nothing more than a super-national socialist government program that aims to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The global NGO destroying Africa — and flooding Europe with refugees



We're often told why immigrants stream into America and Europe by the millions, straining local resources and making a mockery of the law: They're searching for a better life.

But have you ever wondered how the life they're fleeing got so bad in the first place?

By presenting itself as both independent and transparent, the Club and its corrupt collaborators skillfully mask a deeper agenda — specifically, one that centralizes authority and imposes a vision that could punish dissent and enforce compliance.

Meet the powerful non-governmental organization pushing just the kind of draconian "sustainability" policies that help keep third-world countries in dire poverty.

"You'll own nothing and be happy." Thanks to this creepy mantra, most of us are already familiar with the World Economic Forum — if only because of founder Klaus Schwab's Bond movie villain accent and sense of style.

Yet many are not aware of its close partner, an even more powerful player in the shadowy corridors of global governance: the Club of Rome.

Founded in 1968 by a faction of scientists, economists, and business leaders to advance sustainability and systemic change, the Club of Rome presents itself as a benign force for good. But beneath this think tank's flimsy facade of altruism lurks a sinister agenda that makes the WEF look like WWE in comparison

If in doubt, let me point you in the direction of its most recent report, which is full of flawed logic and sadistic suggestions.

Legislated famine

In this document, the authors outline a ridiculous road map for achieving the "Sustainable Development Goals" in Africa. One of the more outlandish and reckless recommendations involves reducing the use of fertilizers. If enacted, this policy would be a death sentence for millions, perhaps tens of millions.

As Africa's population surges, reducing agricultural productivity risks widespread famine and suffering. This is a continent synonymous with starvation. Instead of empowering African nations to harness their natural resources, feed their people, and achieve economic growth, the Club promotes policies that prioritize environmental ideals over human welfare. This social engineering masquerading as progress could have catastrophic consequences.

Maybe that's part of the plan.

The Club of Rome's ideology is not confined to Africa; it resonates throughout Europe and beyond. In a time when many European nations grapple with the influx of immigrants and refugees, these misguided initiatives only serve to exacerbate existing challenges. Since 1990, the number of African immigrants living outside their home countries has more than doubled, with Europe experiencing the most pronounced growth.

An overwhelmed Europe

Over 11 million African-born individuals now call Europe home, many having journeyed through perilous sea routes. They arrive traumatized, often unable to communicate in the language of their new country, thrust into cultures and environments that feel utterly foreign, because they are. This influx brings a way of life that starkly contrasts with local customs, resulting in a clash of civilizations. This is not xenophobic speculation. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany are overwhelmed with African immigrants, and some of the stories of their behavior are nothing short of shocking.

North African immigrants, particularly from Morocco and Tunisia, are increasingly linked to a surge in violent crime in Germany. Disturbingly, these individuals are responsible for an average of one murder every six days, a statistic that underscores a troubling trend. The rise in serious offenses — assaults, stabbings, and rapes — coincides with the left-liberal German government's hesitance to deport offenders, raising serious concerns about public safety.

Since 2019, the number of murder cases involving Tunisians has skyrocketed by 110% while cases involving Moroccans have risen by 67%. According to data from the Federal Criminal Police Office, a murder was committed by either a Tunisian or a Moroccan every six days last year. These countries are known for their strong Islamic traditions, which often run counter to Western values.

In contrast, Southern African nations, where Christianity is more prevalent, often reflect different social dynamics. The influx of North African immigrants, with cultural and religious differences rooted in Islam, has sparked a clash that further complicates integration and endangers the people of Europe.

Thanks to the reckless recommendations of unelected globalists with the Club of Rome, the WEF, and the European Union, Europe now grapples with the dire consequences of this “human oil spill.” The surge of immigrants has overwhelmed social services, heightened cultural tensions, and fueled fears of escalating crime, unemployment, and the demise of broader society.

Post-COVID carnage

The backdrop for this upheaval is the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns imposed by governments across the globe became a catalyst for radical change. While you and I were imprisoned in our homes, the elites — those behind organizations like the Club of Rome and the WEF — strategized about the future. They saw an opportunity to implement their vision for a post-COVID world, one where individuals would relinquish their rights and property in exchange for a facade of security and stability.

Again, this is not conjecture. The Club of Rome, through its partnerships with the WEF and the EU, seeks to chart a path for “systemic change” that undermines individual freedoms. Its influence extends into policymaking, shaping agendas that prioritize climate ideology over the welfare of citizens. This collusion raises critical questions about the legitimacy of its authority and the future trajectory of humanity.

The launch of the Systems Transformation Hub earlier this year marks a disturbing shift in Europe’s governance. Amid an escalating series of “crises” — conflict, climate change, and “deepening inequality” — this initiative seeks to overhaul societal structures under the banner of sustainability and unity. With Europe facing a number of pivotal elections, the timing of the Hub's emergence was anything but coincidental.

At its core, the Hub aims to craft policies and create a narrative that fit neatly with the European Green Deal. It emphasizes scientific data — often selectively chosen, as the COVID pandemic has shown — over public opinion, subtly undermining democratic processes and paving the way for directives from an exclusive elite. After all, the elites clearly know best.

Unaccountable authority

While the Hub touts its commitment to creating “a prosperous, resilient, green, and just Europe,” the reality may be a consolidation of power in the hands of a select few. Here, I suggest, “green” translates to cash flow rather than genuine environmental concern — think eco-friendly profits rather than eco-friendly policies. By presenting itself as both independent and transparent, the Club and its corrupt collaborators skillfully mask a deeper agenda — specifically, one that centralizes authority and imposes a vision that could punish dissent and enforce compliance.

The most dangerous aspect of organizations like the Club of Rome and the World Economic Forum is their enduring influence in a world where politicians come and go and nations rise and fall. These entities, composed of unelected, largely unknown officials, wield power that transcends electoral cycles, remaining ever-present as they pull the strings behind the scenes.

This unaccountable authority allows them to shape societal norms and policies without the scrutiny that elected leaders face, fundamentally undermining democratic processes. Operating with a level of permanence that defies political turnover, these organizations pose a grave threat to the Western world.

FACT CHECK: Did A WEF Document Confirm Six Billion Humans Will Die In 2025?

A screenshot of a headline shared on Facebook claims a World Economic Forum (WEF) document confirms six billion humans will die in 2025. Verdict: False The claim is false and originally stems from an Aug. 22 article published by “The People’s Voice,” a website that is known for spreading “fake news.” Fact Check: AMSilk, a […]

Beware of worshipping the great and powerful digital god of the Great Reset



Much fanfare has been lavished on the concept of artificial intelligence in the past five years, to the point that its primacy is treated in the media as a foregone conclusion. The idea that algorithms can “think” has become a pervading myth, a sci-fi fantasy come to life. The reality is much less impressive.

We continually hear from globalists at the World Economic Forum and other elitist institutions that AI is the catalyst for the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — a technological singularity that will supposedly change every aspect of our society forever. I keep waiting for the moment that AI does something significant in terms of advancing human knowledge or making our lives better. The moment never comes. In fact, the globalists keep moving the goalposts for what AI really is.

Globalists want the proliferation of AI because they know that people are lazy and will use the system as a stand-in for individual research. If this happens on a large scale, then AI could be used to rewrite every aspect of history, corrupt the very roots of science and mathematics, and turn the population into a drooling hive mind, a buzzing froth of brain-dead drones consuming every proclamation of the algorithm.

I would note that WEF zealots like Yuval Harari talk about AI like it is the rise of an all-powerful deity (I discuss the globalist worship of AI in my article "Artificial Intelligence: A Secular Look at the Digital Antichrist"). Yet Harari has also recently downplayed AI as a sentient intelligence. He argues that self-awareness or consciousness doesn’t need to be achieved in order to be considered a super-being or a living entity. He even suggests that the popular image of a Terminator-like AI with individual agency and desire is not a legitimate expectation.

In other words, AI as it stands today is nothing more than a mindless algorithm, and thus it is not AI. But if every aspect of our world is engineered around digital infrastructures and the populace is taught to put blind faith in the “infallibility” of algorithms, then eventually they become the robot gods the globalists so desperately desire. That is to say, AI dominance is only possible if everyone BELIEVES that AI is legitimate. Harari essentially admits to this agenda in the speech above.

The allure of AI for average people is the pie-in-the-sky promise of freedom from worry or responsibility. As with all narcissists, the global elite love to future-fake and buy popular conformity now on false promises of rewards that will never come.

Yes, algorithms are currently used to help laymen do things they could not do before, such as build websites, edit essays, cheat on college exams, create bad artwork and video content, etc. Useful applications are few and far between. For example, the claim that AI is “revolutionizing” medical diagnosis and treatment is far-fetched. The U.S., the nation that arguably has the most access to AI tools, is also suffering from declining life expectancy. We know it’s not COVID because the virus has a 99.8% average survival rate. You would think that if AI is so powerful in its ability to identify and treat ailments, the average American would be living longer.

These digital tools haven't lived up to the hype

There is no evidence of a single benefit to AI on a broader social scale. At most, it looks like it will be good at taking jobs away from web developers and McDonald’s drive-thru employees. The globalist notion that AI will create a robotic renaissance of art, music, literature, and scientific discovery is utter nonsense. AI has proven to be nothing more than a tool of mediocre convenience, but that’s actually why it’s so dangerous.

I suspect the WEF has changed its ideas about what AI should be because it’s not living up to the delusional aspirations the elites originally had for it. They’ve been waiting for a piece of software to come to life and start giving them insights into the mechanics of the universe, and they’re starting to realize that’s never going to happen. Instead, the elitists are increasingly shifting their focus to the melding of the human and digital worlds. They want to fabricate the necessity of AI because human dependence on the technology serves the purposes of centralization.

But what would this actually look like? Well, it requires the population to continue to get dumber while AI becomes more integral to society.

For example, it is widely accepted at this point that a college education is no indication of intelligence or skill. Millions of graduates entering the workforce today display an unsettling level of incompetence. This is partially because college educators are less capable and ideologically biased and the average curriculum has degraded. But we also need to start accounting for the number of kids coasting their way through school using ChatGPT and other cheat boxes.

They don’t need to learn anything; the algorithm and their cell phone cameras do it all for them. This trend is disturbing because human beings tend to take the easiest path in every aspect of survival. Most people stopped learning how to grow food because industrial farming does it for us. They stopped learning how to hunt because there are slaughterhouses and refrigerated trucks. Many Zennials today are incapable of cooking for themselves because they can get takeout delivered to their door any time they want. They barely talk on the phone or create physical communities any more because texting and social media have become the intermediaries in human interaction.

Yes, everything is “easier,” but that does not mean anything is better.

My great fear — the future that I see coming down the road — is one in which human beings no longer bother to think. AI might be seen as the ultimate accumulation of human knowledge, a massive library or digital brain that does all the searching and thinking for you. Why learn anything when AI “knows everything”? Except this is a lie.

AI doesn’t know everything; it only knows what its programmers want it to know. It only gives you the information its programmers want you to have. The globalists understand this, and they can taste the power that they will have should AI become paramount as an educational platform. They see it as a way to trick people into abandoning personal development and individual thought.

Look at it this way: If everyone in the world starts turning to AI for answers to all their questions, then everyone in the world will be given the same exact answers and will come to the same exact conclusions. All AI has to do is actively censor any information that contradicts the official narrative.

Centralized control

We got a taste of this Orwellian condition during the COVID pandemic, when Big Tech companies like Google used algorithms to bury any and all data that proved COVID was not the threat that government officials said it was. You could not go on YouTube for at least three years and look up alternative information on COVID or the vaccines. The algorithm forced everyone to sift through a long list of establishment sources, many of them promoting blatant lies about masking, social distancing, the COVID death rate, and vaccine safety.

The powers that be don’t even need to directly censor or remove information they don’t like. All they have to do is let the algorithm dictate the search results and bury the truth on page 10,000, where no one will look.

How would this affect the average person? Say AI is programmed to dictate scientific discourse. What if AI says that man-made climate change is an undeniable reality and the “science is settled” while never presenting the mountain of counter-evidence to the contrary? No one will look up the real data because AI will make it impossible to find. Everyone will assume AI is telling them all there is to know about the subject, but it gets worse than that.

Many readers might remember a few months back when Google AI system “Gemini” was programmed to force DEI onto its users. Whenever a person asked the AI to create a historical image, the algorithm made everyone black or brown and often female. Depictions of white men were suspiciously rare despite historical accuracy. This meant endless images of black and brown Highlanders in Scotland, black Founding Fathers in America, female Catholic popes, Asian knights in medieval Europe, and, hilariously, even black Nazis in WWII Germany.

AI developers often claim that once an AI is created, they don’t really control what it does and how it grows. The Gemini incident proves this is a lie. AI can definitely be controlled or at least molded by coding to promote whatever propaganda the programmers want it to promote. There is no such thing as an autonomous AI; there is always an agenda.

To summarize, globalists want the proliferation of AI because they know that people are lazy and will use the system as a stand-in for individual research. If this happens on a large scale, then AI could be used to rewrite every aspect of history, corrupt the very roots of science and mathematics, and turn the population into a drooling hive mind, a buzzing froth of brain-dead drones consuming every proclamation of the algorithm as if it is sacrosanct.

In this way, Yuval Harari is right. AI does not need to become sentient or wield an army of killer robots to do great harm to humanity. All it has to do is be convenient enough that we no longer care to think for ourselves. Like the “great and powerful” Oz hiding behind a digital curtain, you assume you’re gaining knowledge from a wizard when you’re really being manipulated by globalist snake-oil salesmen.

Editor's note: This article was originally published on alt-market.us.

Why universal basic income is a Trojan horse for globalist control over free citizens



To most people following the story, UBI means universal basic income. The proposal, which has floated around under different names since antiquity, took shape in its modern incarnation as a project mainly pushed by British intellectuals favoring (at a minimum) some kind of collectivist floor to capitalist society.

Today, this sort of welfare arrangement is more closely associated with tech and tech-adjacent people who see progress in automation as inevitable and/or highly desirable. However, it is also costly because it adversely impacts the relevance or use of most human beings.

A lot of people laugh at satanism and even the idea of Satan, but there’s a reason the devil has stuck around in our consciousness to this very day.

It is no surprise that the arc of utopian Anglo thinking would end up here. Communism, as formulated by the functionally Anglo Marx and Engels, looked forward to a time when all people became industrially free to toggle among whatever pursuits they preferred whenever they cared to do so.

It is but a small leap to posit that the only real path to realizing this utopian collective is for a special class of super-capitalists to build the only kind of industry that could theoretically liberate everyone from the need for work or, indeed, any economic valuation.

That agenda (and the worldview behind it) seems very difficult to reconcile or harmonize with Christianity — for many reasons, but perhaps above all because it dramatically encourages looking to the machinery of utopian collectivism (and the people behind it) as the source of all goodness, salvation, and creative power rather than to the Lord of all creation, the triune God.

All too predictably, it’s now increasingly fashionable and high-status for AI researchers and technicians to baldly proclaim that they’re building a god to be worshiped as the one true transformer of all people out of their given human form. This is a god that destroys the Christian God by destroying the crown jewel of His creation, the human being.

Of course, we’re told, this is a good thing, actually, because what comes next for us is beyond our wildest dreams — in other words, we’re about to become gods, too, and it will be like nothing anyone has imagined.

This promise will carry the sting of especially diabolical heresy to those familiar with the millennia-old sacred Christian tradition of theosis, the concept and (highly laborious) practice of working to achieve union with God eventually. That tradition, taught carefully by the Church, has emphasized that the greatest of spiritual risks and harms come from trying to shortcut or speed-run theosis, properly understood as the reunion desired for us all by the immeasurably loving God who created us. The path toward theosis is marked and defined by the utmost patience, humility, discipline, and self-denial — not by (for example) maximizing “mind-blowing” inventions that make it ever easier for people to experience ecstasies and produce fantasies.

In sum, the best and oldest Christian teachings have warned the most against what is being pitched to us most aggressively as humanity's ultimate universal achievement.

Notably, this warning has great power because it doesn’t order us to stop making advanced tools or using them simply. Its counsel is more difficult and more spiritually purifying. It’s to recognize that the temptation to usurp and replace God is so difficult to resist that our best efforts are doomed to failure without an utterly humble and absolute reliance on God and trust in Him — a round-the-clock watchfulness wherein we focus on stopping temptations at the spiritual door to our hearts before they can get in, take hold, and grow.

All this deep and needful wisdom seems to be entirely lost on the loudest and most prominent advocates of universal basic income today, who are really advocating it because it helps accelerate us toward universal bot idolatry.

Beneath the hype, advocates struggle to ignore the fact that even the most extraordinary machines are only means to ends outside and beyond them. All machines, all tools, are for something, and the existence and development of these useful devices always ultimately depend on a creator exercising some kind of discernment, judgment, and, it must be concluded, worship.

As bleeding-edge technologists increasingly recognize that theology and worship are inescapable no matter how radically machine-making evolves, they must inevitably come to realize that one’s own tool — one’s own creation — can never be one’s god. If you think you’re worshiping tech for tech’s sake, you are deluded; you’re actually serving some other idol, some other facet of God broken off and falsely elevated to spiritually sovereign status.

A lot of people laugh at satanism and even the idea of Satan, but there’s a reason the devil has stuck around in our consciousness to this very day. And a lot of people are about to relearn why.

‘None of it was real’: The most DANGEROUS LIES from Kamala’s DNC ‘performance’



Kamala Harris undeniably put on a great show during her DNC presidential nomination acceptance, and even Glenn Beck can admit it.

“She did a very good job. It was a nice performance. None of it was real; none of it was really accurate,” Glenn says before reviewing all of the self-proclaimed radical’s blatant lies.

“Opportunity is not available to everyone. That’s why we will create what I call an opportunity economy. An opportunity economy where everyone has the chance to compete and a chance to succeed, whether you live in a rural area, small town, or big city,” Kamala said.

“As president, I will bring together labor and workers and small business owners and entrepreneurs and American companies to create jobs, to grow our economy, and to lower the cost of everyday needs like health care and housing and groceries,” she continued.

While the crowd erupted in cheers, Glenn knows the difference between what they think she's saying and what Kamala actually means.

“That was the exact language that is in the Soviet constitution,” Glenn explains. “When she talks about providing housing, that is not a right. That is an American dream, not a right. But they’re changing that.”

Another concerning bit of her speech is “lowering the cost of everyday needs,” because she’s not talking about increasing growth.

“She’s talking about price controls, something else that comes from communist nations. It is extraordinarily dangerous,” Glenn says.

But these weren’t her only lies.

Kamala went on to claim that she would always “fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families,” despite being a member of the administration that forced members of the military out of the military for refusing to get an experimental vaccine.

“I just can’t put into words how stupid you have to be to buy any of this. This was an absolute show last night. They are hoping that in the next 12 weeks, nobody gets a chance to ask her a question, that she is on teleprompter the entire time,” Glenn says.

Kamala also championed a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, explaining that she “helped mobilize a global response, over 50 countries, to defend against Putin’s aggression” regarding letting Ukraine into NATO.

“What was different about this coalition that we had never, ever seen before?” Glenn asks, before answering himself. “It was a coalition of countries, and when she put that coalition together, that’s when gas prices went through the roof.”

“Between them shutting off all of our pipelines and then saying we can’t buy any Russian oil, which never worked. ‘Oh, cause we’re going to collapse their economy,’” he mocks, adding, “They’re doing it themselves with our economy.”

The coalition also involved the largest corporations in the world, which were threatened by the World Economic Forum to comply.

“That was the first time we saw what a global government could possibly do.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.