RADIOJune 19, 2024

Are Scientists Harvesting Human Embryos to Power Supercomputers?!

In a story straight out of The Matrix or Terminator, environmentalist scientists are harvesting human stem cells to build "batteries" for A.I. supercomputers. But what makes this even more terrifying is how it works: The most sought-after source of the stem cells for these "organoids" is embryos, and they only last about 100 days until they die. So, are we harvesting God's creation to power man's "creation?" Blaze Media editor-at-large James Poulos joins Glenn to explain the whole story ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: He is TheBlaze media editor at-large.

And TheBlaze TV host of Zero Hour. He's also the founder and editorial director of Return, which is a new vertical on TheBlaze.com.

We have several different things that we're working on. And one of them is return, just like on your keyboard, when you hit return.

It's all about tech.

He wrote a story that is one of the more disturbing, dystopian stories. And we've done our homework on this, to some degree.

Enough to go, oh, no. This is actually in practice, and being used by the University of Michigan, right now.

This is not some, you know, some day. And it's a little like the Matrix.

Environmentalists are worried about, how do we make enough power to be able to power AI?

Well, they have found a way. Called organoids.

Wait until you hear this.

James is with us now. Hello, James.

JAMES: Hey, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Well, I was better before I read your story on organoids. Yeah, I know.

This is bizarre and terrifying.

JAMES: Yeah. It's really disturbing. And it's been around for a little while. But it's really starting to kick into gear.

As you said, you know, AI consumes a ton of electricity. A lot of energy. You know, environmentalists have always hated nuclear power for pretty perverse reasons, I think.

So they're so afraid of using nuclear power, that what would invoke now is turning to us.

To be the batteries. Just take the stem cells out of embryos. Out of the labs. Sometimes out of tumors.

Turn them into brain cells, basically.

And use those as batteries, to power what they're calling bio processors. They say, it will use about a million times less power than a typical digital processor. And that's a good thing, they say.

You can access them remotely. And this is the new hype. You know, it's from the same folks who brought you the idea of going to carbon zero. Net zero carbon use. They look at human beings as a waste of space. A waste of energy.

And they want to harness that, to run AI that is supposed to be smarter than anyone can understand.

GLENN: So on final sparks website, this is the company that is doing this.

This linked to a daily mail article, that says organoids are tiny, self-organized, three-dimensional tissue cultures made from stem cells.

Stanford's website says stem cells come from two sources. Embryonic stem cells.

And then, you know, that's unused embryos, and they are then donated to science, or adult stem cells.

But those are really limited, and can only generate certain type of cells.

So they also say, final sparks website say, these organoids live for about 100 days.

So are we harvesting embryos? Using them to power a supercomputer for 100 days?

And then killing them, and looking for more embryo stem cells?

JAMES: Well, right.

So if you are uncomfortable as IFD, this is going to drive you nuts. There's an extra category of extra stem cells they've created called induced pluripotent cells. And basically, what you do, you start the embryonic process.

But you arrest it before it gets too far.

And then you harvest the stem cells out of this artificially induced embryonic organism, right? Human organism, and then you create a fork, and you just grow those cells.

You know, sort of the way in the way they grow fake meat cells. You know, it's really akin to cancerous cells, and the way that they grow.

Right. So this is something that is not one and done.

It's not like, well, maybe once upon a time, there was an embryo who had to die for the greater good.

No. This is a perpetual motion machine.

You have to keep harvesting.

GLENN: Yeah, every 100 days.

This is not a hypothetical, by the way.

Final Spark says, the University of Michigan already using this neuroplatform.

And this is -- this is because there's not enough energy, and these -- these organoids, use so much less energy, that if we just harvest these embryos, we can then -- AI can go on and live forever.

And we don't have energy problems.

Good Lord. That's terrifying!

JAMES: Yeah. At a certain point, if we were created in the image of God. How far can you stray from that, before something horrible happens?

None of this is a surprise. Nikola Tesla infamously said, you will live to see manmade horrors beyond your comprehension, and we're getting pretty close.

GLENN: Yeah.

You have -- you now have scientists who don't -- don't necessarily believe in God.

Think that they are creating a God. In AI.

Now, harvesting God's creation to power their new God.

Good Lord, help us.

JAMES: Yeah. Ask if you cross that Rubicon, where you say, we're going to turn these brain cells into cyborgs. Into Frankenstein cells. Then it's not very long before you say, well, gosh.

Why don't we just turn the whole human race into this kind of cyborg entity. You know.

The terminator, at least the machines are stomping around, looking to wipe us out.

These machines look at us more as the solution than the problem. They just suck all our energy out of us.

GLENN: You know, I was reading a book about energy. And how all of this is going.

And it will. I mean, if it's an entity. That needs food. Needs energy.

To live. Just like us. You're trapped in the mountains.

You know, in -- in a snowstorm. And there's 20 of you. And you start dying.

You're going to start eating each other.

You have to survive. And that is what happens.

The same thing, it will eat whatever will give it the energy.

I would rather not train it to eat people. Or anything with -- to do with people.

JAMES: Well, especially when you have nuclear power there.

And to their credit, there are some tech guys out there who are working on advanced forms of nuclear power, clean energy coming out of things that you can do.

Splitting up atoms.

Yeah. There are Rhode Island risks there. But, gosh, if we are going to go down this road to any degree, where we will need significantly more energy, in order to -- you know, whether it's stay ahead of China, or whatever excuse you want to come up with.

Or for just the sake of -- of more human flourishing. Imagine that. Gosh, you have to -- you have to take a look at nuclear, before you start looking at the guy sitting next to you, as your source of energy.

GLENN: I saw a story yesterday, about here in Idaho. That they're shutting down the water on -- because of environmental reasons.

They're shutting down the water for I don't even remember. Half a million acres. Or more. Of farmland here.

They're just going to shut the water off. So all these farmers will lose their farmland. Coincidentally what is also happening, and exactly the same time, is they are opening up cobalt mines in Idaho. And these cobalt mines need tons of water to keep the drills cool and everything else.

And those are for batteries. So it appears, as if the state of Idaho, shafted the farmers. And said, forget about the food.

Transfer the water, to the cobalt mines. So we can have batteries.

That's more important.

And nobody has tied these two together yet.

It -- we're in trouble. We've misplaced our values.

JAMES: It's a big problem. And you know what else is crazy about Idaho, Glenn?

Right now, there's bitcoin mining going on in Idaho. A lot of people started to understand how Bitcoin works.

They're skeptical. But this is something that is still a first rate technology, that ordinary Americans can use, starting right now.

Takes maybe a minute or two to learn how to do it. But you can do it. When the Bitcoin miners take the energy that they need, in order to do what they do.

Legislators get upset. Oh, I don't know. This is using a lot of energy. So they're looking at curbing, the ability of the miners to lose electricity.

Or even charging them more for their electric lease. Meanwhile, when Facebook comes to town in Idaho and they say, hey, we're building a gigantic data center.

It's going to consume tons and tons of energy. The legislators say, well, if you're creating jobs, we will actually give you a tax cut.

This is how messed up our priorities are right now.

GLENN: Wow. I don't know if you saw The Godfather of AI.

But Jeffrey Hinton, he's the guy who left Google, if I remember right.

And he left -- he left Google, because he said, they were going into some unethical things. Is it was becoming a real danger. Do you remember this story?

JAMES: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: Yeah. And he said he had real fear, at Google. That the -- that AI would fall into the hands of bad actors.

He just did an interview, where he -- he said that he was asked the question here.

If he was in favor of a super intelligent AI destroying humanity, and replacing it with something objectively better in terms of consciousness. He said, I'm actually for it.

But I think I would be wiser for me to say. That I'm against it.

He was then pressed on, and asked him, can you elaborate. And he said, well, people don't like being replaced. Well, yeah. No.

I'm good. He said, it's not -- it's -- it's not clear, that we're the best form of intelligence, that there is.

Obviously, from a person's perspective. Everything relates to people. But it may be that there comes a point, when we see things like humanist, as a racist term.

We're dealing with people, who are very, very smart and very, very clever.

But many of these people are anti-human. And they hide behind the environmentalist thing. To -- to get away with it.

JAMES: It's really diabolical. If you're looking for an intelligence that's higher than human intelligence. That actually doesn't want to kill us, but in fact loves us with a love beyond human comprehension. It's right there, in the form of God the creator.

And if you reject the existence of God, then it's just really looking like, these days only a matter of time, before you reject the existence of human beings too. I know it's not everyone.

I know there's some -- some atheists out there, that think human beings are still good. But it's looking like they're outnumbered.

And they're losing the battle for the soul of the atheist if you will -- these guys, they have really just -- they do hate humanity.

And they think that intelligence is more important than -- than love.

They think the brain is more important than the heart. And, you know, it all sounds interesting, when it's at the level of theory. But when you ask them to develop it out of practice. It doesn't mean replacing humans. It means wiping them out.

GLENN: So which -- which movie do I think is more likely?

I mean, I never thought the Matrix. But the Matrix, you know, batteries. Human batteries. And it creating a utopia. In people's minds.

Or do you see us.

I mean, remember, the beginning of Skynet. And the terminator.

The first line, I think in that movie, is the machines rose from the ashes in the nuclear fire.

And it was AI that had been used by the Pentagon, and the world's war machines.

And then we blew ourselves up.

And AI decided, we were the problem. And started to wipe us out.

Here we are, talking about the absolute unthinkable. World War III.

Which would end in nuclear war.

And wipe almost all life off the planet.

And we're giving the keys to much of our work.

We just had Jack Carr on yesterday.

Where he was talking about -- you know, he said, nobody would tell me exactly.

But if I talk to enough people. They're putting it all together. And they can look at it.

Oh, we're turning the keys over. To our -- of our killing machines.

Over to AI soon.

That -- that is not -- that can't be a good thing. Which -- which movie are we -- are we going towards? It's kind of like, you know, Brave New World. Or 1984.

I think we're 1984.

Are we headed more towards the terminator, or the Matrix?

VOICE: Well, you know, we have lots of sci-fi movies to choose from. I would point toward. We have sci-fi horror films that we can look to. We got movies like Event Horizon.

We have series like Hell Raiser.

Where the bad guys are inter-dimensional demons, who get summoned by human beings and lead them into hell.

We have David Cronenberg.

He has other films, that really show you, that there is that side of technology they can't be makes you sort of -- fills you with child like wonder.

And all these promises of flourishing beyond imagination.

There is a dark side too.

If we pretend the dark side is not there.

That's usually the way we get led astray in the worst possible way.

GLENN: So is there anything that can be done, going back to the first topic of using stem cells from embryos for human brains. Into these organoids.

Is there anything we should be looking towards. Or pushing for?

Or what?

GLENN: Well, I think, number one, we have to ask ourselves serious questions about how enslaved we are going to be, if we are always looking to China.

If we look at China. And say, they're taking over.

We can't beat them, unless we join them.

Or we have to fight fire with fire. If we're constantly comparing ourselves with what China is doing. We will lose touch with who we really are, as Americans, and depending as how things shake out as human beings.

That's point one. I think point two.

Is, yeah. Okay. You want to innovate on energy.

Look to nuclear. This is not some bizarre technology. It's been around for a long time.

Some countries. That the French. The Japanese. They have Fukushima. They have tsunamis all the time. Not a problem in the United States.

There are ways of doing points of energy, that don't involve turning human beings into these sort of Frankenstein cyborgs and using them for energy.

GLENN: James, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Max Lucado & Glenn Beck: Finding unity in faith

Glenn Beck sits down with beloved pastor and author Max Lucado for a deep conversation about faith, humility, and finding unity in a divided world. Together, they reflect on the importance of principles over politics, why humility opens the door to true dialogue, and how centering life on God brings clarity and peace. Lucado shares stories of faith, the dangers of a “prosperity gospel,” and the powerful reminder that life is not about making a big deal of ourselves, but about making a big deal of God. This uplifting conversation will inspire you to re-center your life, strengthen your faith, and see how humility and love can transform even the most divided times.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Max Lucado HERE

Confronting evil: Bill O'Reilly's insight on Charlie Kirk's enduring legacy

Bill O’Reilly joins Glenn Beck with a powerful prediction about Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Evil tried to destroy his movement, Bill says, but – as his new book, “Confronting Evil,” lays out – evil will just end up destroying itself once more…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Bill O'Reilly, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

BILL: Good, Beck, thanks for having me back. I appreciate it. How have you been?

GLENN: Last week was really tough. I know it was tough for you and everybody else.

But, you know -- I haven't -- I haven't seen anything.

BILL: Family okay? All of that?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Family is okay. Family is okay.

BILL: Good question good. That's the most important thing.

GLENN: It is.

So, Bill, what do you make of this whole Charlie Kirk thing. What happened, and where are we headed?

BILL: So my analysis is different for everybody else, and those that know me for so long. About a year ago, I was looking for a topic -- it was a contract to do another book. And I said, you know what's happening in America, and around the world. Was a rise in evil. It takes a year to research and write these books.

And not since the 1930s, had I seen that happen, to this extent. And in the 1930s, of course, you would have Tojo and Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and all these guys. And it led to 100 million dead in World War II. The same thing, not to the extent.

But the same thing was --
GLENN: Yet.
BILL: -- bubbling in the world, and in the United States.

I decided to write a book. The book comes out last Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Putin lobs missiles into Poland.

Ultra dangerous.

And a few hours later, Charlie Kirk is assassinated.

And one of the interviewers said to me last week, your -- your book is haunting. Is haunting.

And I think that's extremely accurate. Because that's what evil does.

And in the United States, we have so many distractions. The social media.

People create around their own lives.

Sports. Whatever it may be. That we look away.

Now, Charlie Kirk was an interesting fellow. Because at a very young age, he was mature enough to understand that he wanted to take a stand in favor of traditional America and Judeo Christian philosophy.

He decided that he wanted to do that.

You know, and when I was 31 or whatever, I was lucky I wasn't in the penitentiary. And I believe you were in the penitentiary.
(laughter)
So he was light years ahead of us.

GLENN: Yes, he was.

BILL: And he put it into motion. All right? Now, most good people, even if you disagree with what Mr. Kirk says on occasion, you admire that. That's the spirit of America. That you have a belief system, that you go out and try to promote that belief system, for the greater good of the country. That's what it is.

That's what Charlie Kirk did.

And he lost his life.

By doing it!

So when you essentially break all of this down. You take the emotion away, all right?

Which I have to do, in my job. You see it as another victory for evil.

But it really isn't.

And this is the ongoing story.

This is the most important story. So when you read my book, Confronting Evil, you'll see that all of these heinous individuals, Putin's on the cover. Mao. Hitler.

Ayatollah Khomeini. And then there are 14 others inside the book. They all destroy themselves.

Evil always destroys itself. But it takes so many people with it. So this shooter destroyed his own family.

And -- and Donald Trump, I talked to him about it last week in Yankee stadium. And Trump is a much different guy than most people think.

GLENN: He is.

JASON: He destroyed his own mother and father and his two brothers.

That's what he did. In addition to the Kirk family!

So evil spreads. Now, if Americans pay attention and come to the conclusion that I just stated, it will be much more difficult for evil to operate openly.

And that's what I think is going to happen.

There's going to be a ferocious backlash against the progressive left in particular.

To stop it, and I believe that is what Mr. Kirk's legacy is going to be.

GLENN: I -- I agree with you on all of these fronts.

I wonder though, you know, it took three, or if you count JFK, four assassinations in the '60s, to confront the evil if you will.

Before people really woke up and said, enough is enough!

And then you have the big Jesus revolution after that.

Is -- I hate to say this. But is -- as far gone as we are, is one assassination enough to wake people up?

JOHN: Some people. Some people will never wake up.

They just don't want to live in the real world, Beck. And it's never been easier to do that with the social media and the phones and the computers.

And you're never going to get them back.

But you don't need them. So let's just be very realistic here on the Glenn Beck show.

Let's run it down.

The corporate media is finished.

In America. It's over.

And you will see that play out the next five years.

Because the corporate media invested so much of its credibility into hating Donald Trump.

And the hate is the key word.

You will find this interesting, Beck. For the first time in ten years, I've been invited to do a major thing on CBS, today.

I will do it GE today. With major Garrett.

GLENN: Wow.

BILL: Now, that only happened because Skydance bought CBS. And Skydance understands the brand CBS is over, and they will have to rehabilitate the whole thing. NBC has not come to that conclusion yet, but it will have to.

And ABC just does the weather. I mean, that's all they care about. Is it snowing in Montana? Okay? The cables are all finished. Even Fox.

Once Trump leaves the stage, there's nowhere for FNC to go. Because they've invested so much in Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

So the fact of the matter is, the corporate media is over in America. That takes a huge cudgel out of the hands of the progressive movement.

Because the progressive movement was dependent on the corporate media to advance its cause. That's going to end, Beck.

GLENN: Well, I would hope that you're right.

Let me ask you about --

BILL: When am I wrong?

When am I wrong?

You've known me for 55 years. When have I been wrong?

GLENN: Okay. All right. All right. We're not here to argue things like that.

So tell me about Skydance. Because isn't Skydance Chinese?

BILL: No! It's Ellison. Larry Ellison, the second richest guy in the world. He owns Lanai and Hawaii, the big tech guy and his son is running it.

GLENN: Yeah, okay.

I though Skydance. I thought that was -- you know them.

BILL: Yeah.

And they -- they're not ideological, but they were as appalled as most of us who pay attention at the deterioration of the network presentations.

So --

GLENN: You think that they could.

BILL: 60 Minutes used to be the gold standard.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And it just -- it -- you know, you know, I don't know if you watch it anymore.

GLENN: I don't either.

So do you think they can actually turn CBS around, or is it just over?

BILL: I don't know. It's very hard to predict, because so many people now bail. I've got a daughter 26, and a son, 22.

They never, ever watched network television.

And you've got -- it's true. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

They don't watch --

BILL: They're not going to watch The Voice. The dancing with this. The juggling with that. You know, I think they could do a much better job in their news presentations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

BILL: Because what they did, is banish people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.

Same voices, with huge followings.

Huge!

All right?

We couldn't get on there.

That's why Colbert got fired. Because Colbert wouldn't -- refused to put on any non-progressive voice, when they were talking about the country.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Well, it's not -- I'm censoring it.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's not that he was fired because he wouldn't do that. He was fired because that led to horrible ratings. Horrible ratings.

BILL: Yes, it was his defiance.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: Fallon has terrible ratings and so does Kimmel. But Colbert was in your face, F you, to the people who were signing his paycheck.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Look, evil can only exist if the mechanisms of power are behind it.

And that's when you read the front -- I take them one by one. And Putin is the most important chapter by far.

GLENN: Why?

BILL: Because Putin would use nuclear weapon.

He wouldn't. He's a psychopath.

And I'm -- on Thursday night, I got a call from the president's people saying, would I meet the president at Yankee stadium for the 9/11 game?

And I said, when a president calls and asks you to meet them, sure.

GLENN: I'll be there. What time?

BILL: It will take me three days to get into Yankee stadium, on Long Island. But I'll start now.

GLENN: Especially because the president is coming. But go ahead.

BILL: Anyway, that was a very, I think that Mr. Trump values my opinion. And it was -- we did talk about Putin.

And the change in Putin. And I had warned him, that Putin had changed from the first administration, where Trump controlled Putin to some extent.

Now he's out of control. Because that's what always happens.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: It happened with Hitler. It happened with Mao. It happened with the ayatollah. It happened with Stalin. Right now. They get worse and worse and worse and worse. And then they blow up.

And that's where Putin is! But he couldn't do any of that, without the assent of the Russian people. They are allowing him to do this, to kill women and children. A million Russian casualties for what! For what! Okay?

So that's why this book is just in the stratosphere. And I was thinking object, oh. Because people want to understand evil, finally. Finally.

They're taking a hard look at it, and the Charlie Kirk assassination was an impetus to do that.

GLENN: Yeah. And I think it's also an impetus to look at the good side.

I mean, I think Charlie was just not a neutral -- a neutral character. He was a force for good. And for God.

And I think that -- that combination is almost the Martin Luther King combination. Where you have a guy who is speaking up for civil rights.

But then also, speaking up for God. And speaking truth, Scripturally.

And I think that combination still, strangely, I wouldn't have predicted it. But strangely still works here in America, and I think it's changed everything.

Bill, it's always food to talk to you. Thank you so much for being on. I appreciate it.

It's Bill O'Reilly. The name of the book, you don't want to miss. Is confronting evil. And he takes all of these really, really bad guys on. One by one. And shows you, what happens if you don't do something about it. Confronting evil. Bill O'Reilly.

And you can find it at BillO'Reilly.com.

The difference between debate and celebrating death

There’s a big difference between firing someone, like a teacher, for believing children shouldn’t undergo trans surgery and firing a teacher who celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. Glenn Beck explains why the latter is NOT “cancel culture.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I got an email from somebody that says, Glenn, in the wake of Charlie's assassination, dozens of teachers, professors and professionals are being suspended or fired for mocking, or even celebrating Charlie Kirk's death.

Critics say conservatives are now being hypocritical because you oppose cancel culture. But is this the same as rose an losing her job over a crude joke. Or is it celebrating murder, and that's something more serious?

For many, this isn't about cancellation it's about trust. If a teacher is entrusted with children or a doctor entrusted with patients, publicly celebrates political violence, have they not yet disqualified themselves from those roles? Words matter. But cheering a death is an action. Is there any consequence for this? Yes. There is.

So let's have that conversation here for a second.

Is every -- is every speech controversy the same?

The answer to that is clearly no.

I mean, we've seen teachers and pastors and doctors and ordinary citizens lose their job now, just for saying they don't believe children under 18 should undergo transgender surgeries. Okay? Lost their job. Chased out.

That opinion, whether you agree or disagree is a moral and medical judgment.

And it is a matter of policy debate. It is speech in the public square.

I have a right to say, you're mutilating children. Okay. You have a right to say, no. We're not. This is the best practices. And then we can get into the silences of it. And we don't shout down the other side.

Okay? Now, on the other hand, you have Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we've seen teachers and professors go online and be celebrate.

Not criticize. Not argue policy. But celebrate that someone was murdered.

Some have gone so far and said, it's not a tragedy. It's a victory. Somebody else, another professor said, you reap what you sow.

Well, let me ask you: Are these two categories of free speech the same?

No! They're not.

Here's the difference. To say, I believe children should not be allowed to have gender surgeries, before 18. That is an attempt, right or wrong. It doesn't matter which side you are.

That is an attempt to protect life. Protect children. And guide society.

It's entering the debate about the role of medicine. The right of parents. And the boundaries of childhood. That's what that is about. To say Charlie Kirk's assassination is a good thing, that's not a debate. That's not even an idea. That's rejoicing in violence. It's glorifying death.

There's no place in a civil society for that kind of stuff. There's not. And it's a difference that actually matters.

You know, our Founders fought for free speech because they believed as Jefferson said, that air can be tolerated where truth is left free to combat it.

So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, at all. I don't think you do either. I hope you don't. Otherwise, you should go back to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Error can be tolerated where truth is left to be free to combat it.

But when speech shifts from debating ideas to celebrating death, doesn't that cease to be the pursuit of truth and instead, just become a glorification of evil?

I know where I stand on that one. Where do you stand?

I mean, if you go back and you look at history, in colonial matter -- in colonial America, if you were to go against the parliament and against the king, those words were dangerous. They were called treason. But they were whys. They were arguments about liberty and taxation and the rights of man.

And the Founders risked their lives against the dictator to say those things.

Now, compare that to France in 1793.

You Thomas Paine, one of or -- one of our founder kind of. On the edges of our founders.

He thought that what was happening in France is exactly like the American Revolution.

Washington -- no. It wasn't.

There the crowds. They didn't gather to argue. Okay? They argued to cheer the guillotine they didn't want the battle of ideas.

They wanted blood. They wanted heads to roll.

And roll they did. You know, until the people who were screaming for the heads to roll, shouted for blood, found that their own heads were rolling.

Then they turned around on that one pretty quickly.

Think of Rome.

Cicero begged his countrymen to preserve the republic through reason, law, and debate. Then what happened?

The mob started cheering assassinations.

They rejoiced that enemies were slaughtered.

They were being fed to the lions.

And the republic fell into empire.

And liberty was lost!

Okay. So now let me bring this back to Charlie Kirk here for a second.

If there's a professor that says, I don't believe children should have surgeries before adulthood, is that cancel culture, when they're fired?

Yes! Yes, it is.

Because that is speech this pursuit of truth.

However imperfect, it is speech meant to protect children, not to harm them. You also cannot be fired for saying, I disagree with that.

If you are telling, I disagree with that. And I will do anything to shut you down including assassination! Well, then, that's a different story.

What I teacher says, I'm glad Charlie Kirk is dead, is that cancel culture, if they're fired?

Or is that just society saying, you know, I don't think I can trust my kid to -- to that guy.

Or that woman.

I know, that's not an enlightening mind.

Somebody who delights in political murder.

I don't want them around my children! Scripture weighs in here too.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Matthew.

What does it reveal about the heart of a teacher who celebrates assassination?

To me, you go back to Scripture. Whoa unto them that call good evil -- evil good and good evil.

A society that will shrug on speech like this, say society that has lost its moral compass.

And I believe we still have a moral compass.

Now, our free speech law doesn't protect both. Absolutely. Under law. Absolutely.

Neither one of them should go to jail.

Neither should be silenced by the state.

But does trust survive both?

Can a parent trust their child to a teacher who is celebrating death?

I think no. I don't think a teacher can be trusted if they think that the children that it's right for children to see strippers in first grade!

I'm sorry. It's beyond reason. You should not be around my children!

But you shouldn't go to jail for that. Don't we, as a society have a right to demand virtue, in positions of authority?

Yes.

But the political class and honestly, the educational class, does everything they can to say, that doesn't matter.

But it does. And we're seeing it now. The line between cancel and culture, the -- the cancellation of people, and the accountability of people in our culture, it's not easy.

Except here. I think it is easy.

Cancel culture is about challenging the orthodoxy. Opinions about faith, morality, biology.
Accountability comes when speech reveals somebody's heart.

Accountability comes when you're like, you are a monster! You are celebrating violence. You're mocking life itself. One is an argument. The other is an abandonment of humanity. The Constitution, so you understand, protects both.

But we as a culture can decide, what kind of voices would shape our children? Heal our sick. Lead our communities?

I'm sorry, if you're in a position of trust, I think it's absolutely right for the culture to say, no!

No. You should not -- because this is not policy debate. This is celebrating death.

You know, our Founders gave us liberty.

And, you know, the big thing was, can you keep it?

Well, how do you keep it? Virtue. Virtue.

Liberty without virtue is suicide!

So if anybody is making this case to you, that this is cancel culture. I just want you to ask them this question.

Which do you want to defend?

Cancel culture that silences debate. Or a culture that still knows the difference between debating ideas and celebrating death.

Which one?

Shocking train video: Passengers wait while woman bleeds out

Surveillance footage of the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, NC, reveals that the other passengers on the train took a long time to help her. Glenn, Stu, and Jason debate whether they were right or wrong to do so.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm -- I'm torn on how I feel about the people on the train.

Because my first instinct is, they did nothing! They did nothing! Then my -- well, sit down and, you know -- you know, you're going to be judged. So be careful on judging others.

What would I have done? What would I want my wife to do in that situation?

STU: Yeah. Are those two different questions, by the way.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: I think they go far apart from each other. What would I want myself to do. I mean, it's tough to put yourself in a situation. It's very easy to watch a video on the internet and talk about your heroism. Everybody can do that very easily on Twitter. And everybody is.

You know, when you're in a vehicle that doesn't have an exit with a guy who just murdered somebody in front of you, and has a dripping blood off of a knife that's standing 10 feet away from you, 15 feet away from you.

There's probably a different standard there, that we should all kind of consider. And maybe give a little grace to what I saw at least was a woman, sitting across the -- the -- the aisle.

I think there is a difference there. But when you talk about that question. Those two questions are definitive.

You know, I know what I would want myself to do. I would hope I would act in a way that didn't completely embarrass myself afterward.

But I also think, when I'm thinking of my wife. My advice to my wife would not be to jump into the middle of that situation at all costs. She might do that anyway. She actually is a heck of a lot stronger than I am.

But she might do it anyway.

GLENN: How pathetic, but how true.

STU: Yes. But that would not be my advice to her.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Now, maybe once the guy has certainly -- is out of the area. And you don't think the moment you step into that situation. He will turn around and kill you too. Then, of course, obviously. Anything you can do to step in.

Not that there was much anyone on the train could do.

I mean, I don't think there was an outcome change, no matter what anyone on that train did.

Unfortunately.

But would I want her to step in?

Of course. If she felt she was safe, yes.

Think about, you said, your wife. Think about your daughter. Your daughter is on that train, just watching someone else getting murdered like that. Would you advise your daughter to jump into a situation like that?

That girl sitting across the aisle was somebody's daughter. I don't know, man.

JASON: I would. You know, as a dad, would I advise.

Hmm. No.

As a human being, would I hope that my daughter or my wife or that I would get up and at least comfort that woman while she's dying on the floor of a train?

Yeah.

I would hope that my daughter, my son, that I would -- and, you know, I have more confidence in my son or daughter or my wife doing something courageous more than I would.

But, you know, I think I have a more realistic picture of myself than anybody else.

And I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I know what I would hope I would do. But I also know what I fear I would do. But I would have hoped that I would have gotten up and at least tried to help her. You know, help her up off the floor. At least be there with her, as she's seeing her life, you know, spill out in under a minute.

And that's it other thing we have to keep in mind. This all happened so rapidly.

A minute is -- will seem like a very long period of time in that situation. But it's a very short period of time in real life.

STU: Yeah. You watch the video, Glenn. You know, I don't need the video to -- to change my -- my position on this.

But at his seem like there was a -- someone who did get there, eventually, to help, right? I saw someone seemingly trying to put pressure on her neck.

GLENN: Yeah. And tried to give her CPR.

STU: You know, no hope at that point. How long of a time period would you say that was?

Do you know off the top of your head?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. I know that we watched the video that I saw. I haven't seen past 30 seconds after she --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- is down. And, you know, for 30 seconds nothing is happening. You know, that is -- that is not a very long period of time.

STU: Right.

GLENN: In reality.

STU: And especially, I saw the pace he was walking. He certainly can't be -- you know, he may have left the actual train car by 30 seconds to a minute. But he wasn't that far away. Like he was still in visual.

He could still turn around and look and see what's going on at that point. So certainly still a threat is my point. He has not, like, left the area. This is not that type of situation.

You know, I -- look, as you point out, I think if I could be super duper sexist for a moment here, sort of my dividing line might just be men and women.

You know, I don't know if it's that a -- you're not supposed to say that, I suppose these days. But, like, there is a difference there. If I'm a man, you know, I would be -- I would want my son to jump in on that, I suppose. I don't know if he could do anything about it. But you would expect at least a grown man to be able to go in there and do something about it. A woman, you know, I don't know.

Maybe I'm -- I hope --

GLENN: Here's the thing I -- here's the thing that I -- that causes me to say, no. You should have jumped in.

And that is, you know, you've already killed one person on the train. So you've proven that you're a killer. And anybody who would have screamed and got up and was with her, she's dying. She's dying. Get him. Get him.

Then the whole train is responsible for stopping that guy. You know. And if you don't stop him, after he's killed one person, if you're not all as members of that train, if you're not stopping him, you know, the person at the side of that girl would be the least likely to be killed. It would be the ones that are standing you up and trying to stop him from getting back to your daughter or your wife or you.

JASON: There was a -- speaking of men and women and their roles in this. There was a video circling social media yesterday. In Sweden. There was a group of officials up on a stage. And one of the main. I think it was health official woman collapses on stage. Completely passes out.

All the men kind of look away. Or I don't know if they're looking away. Or pretending that they didn't know what was going on. There was another woman standing directly behind the woman passed out.

Immediately springs into action. Jumps on top. Grabs her pant leg. Grabs her shoulder. Spins her over and starts providing care.

What did she have that the other guys did not? Or women?

She was a sheepdog. There is a -- this is my issue. And I completely agree with Stu. I completely agree with you. There's some people that do not respond this way. My issue is the proportion of sheepdogs versus people that don't really know how to act. That is diminishing in western society. And American society.

We see it all the time in these critical actions. I mean, circumstances.

There are men and women, and it's actually a meme. That fantasize about hoards of people coming to attack their home and family. And they sit there and say, I've got it. You guys go. I'm staying behind, while I smoke my cigarette and wait for the hoards to come, because I will sacrifice myself. There are men and women that fantasize of block my highway. Go ahead. Block my highway. I'm going to do something about it. They fantasize about someone holding up -- not a liquor store. A convenience store or something. Because they will step in and do something. My issue now is that proportion of sheepdogs in society is disappearing. Just on statistical fact, there should be one within that train car, and there were none.

STU: Yeah. I mean --

JASON: They did not respond.

STU: We see what happens when they do, with Daniel Penny. Our society tries to vilify them and crush their existence. Now, there weren't that many people on that train. Right?

At least on that car. At least it's limited. I only saw three or four people there, there may have been more. I agree with you, though. Like, you see what happens when we actually do have a really recent example of someone doing exactly what Jason wants and what I would want a guy to do. Especially a marine to step up and stop this from happening. And the man was dragged by our legal system to a position where he nearly had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

I mean, I -- it's insanity. Thankfully, they came to their senses on that one.

GLENN: Well, the difference between that one and this one though is that the guy was threatening. This one, he killed somebody.

STU: Yeah. Right. Well, but -- I think -- but it's the opposite way. The debate with Penny, was should he have recognize that had this person might have just been crazy and not done anything?

Maybe. He hadn't actually acted yet. He was just saying things.

GLENN: Yeah. Well --

STU: He didn't wind up stabbing someone. This is a situation where these people have already seen what this man will do to you, even when you don't do anything to try to stop him. So if this woman, who is, again, looks to be an average American woman.

Across the aisle. Steps in and tries to do something. This guy could easily turn around and just make another pile of dead bodies next to the one that already exists.

And, you know, whether that is an optimal solution for our society, I don't know that that's helpful.

In that situation.