The United Nations Plot to Censor Your Speech





Today’s podcast discusses the United Nations’ plot to censor speech and the continuing conversation on wokeness. We examine the age-old communist tactic of redefining words and the modern political environment’s manipulation of language. This brings us to the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who has called for governments to take action against citizens spreading “misinformation” and “disinformation” online about climate change.

The left often cites a 97% consensus among climate scientists, but this figure is based on a methodologically faulty meta-analysis. Those who preach about the dangers of climate change, like Bill Gates, often display hypocritical behavior, as Gates’ private jet use results in a large carbon footprint.

Meanwhile, the UN’s push for government censorship is tied to the climate change narrative and the concept of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, which coerces companies into adopting specific practices or risk being excluded from investment funds. The majority of Americans are unaware of ESG investing and how it may impact their retirement savings, among other investment accounts.

The climate change narrative serves as a scare tactic, presenting an existential threat that can only be addressed through sustainability, environmentalism, and ESG investing. Despite dissenting opinions and the failure of past climate change predictions to materialize, censorship attempts continue.

The UN’s plot to censor speech is manipulating language and promoting fear-based narratives to control the discourse and push their agenda. It is crucial to recognize these tactics and question the motivations behind them.

Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

Hi, guys. Welcome back to the Liz Wheeler Show. I know I said on Wednesday that we were going to do a two-part series this week on wokeness, but it is turned into a three-part series because there’s more to be said, if you haven’t, if you haven’t watched the shows, the other two shows, one came out on Tuesday, one came out on, Wednesday about wokeness, or one came out on Thursday actually about wokeness.  

Highly recommend that you do that you, that you watch those, especially the conversation with Dr. James Lindsay was fascinating. He defined wokeness the way that the Left understands it, and defined wokeness the way that conservatives understand it, and the slights differences and how we use it compared to how the Left uses. It explains a lot of the political turmoil surrounding this word, especially as it pertains to race. I I mentioned this on Thursday.  

I mentioned this on Tuesday as well, but the Left has started propagating this narrative that when you, and I use the word woke, we mean anti-black, which is of course not true. We’re not racist. We don’t mean it with any racial undertones. We’re simply identifying a radical leftist political position and calling it woke because it is of the neo-Marxist heritage. But the Left has redefined the word black, redefined the word white, not to mean skin color erase.  

They’ve redefined these words to mean a political ideology. So when you look at it through their lens, it’s of course not reflective of reality because black is the color of someone’s skin. White is the color of one skin shouldn’t be part of your identity. It’s an immutable characteristic, but that’s the reality of what race is. But if you look at this through the, if you just entertain the premise of what the Left is saying, that whiteness and blackness are a political ideology, and that if you are someone with a certain color skin, you are somehow obligated to adhere to a certain political ideology.  

Meaning, if you are black, then you must be a Democrat, or you are not being a real authentic black person. Then it actually, their accusation that woke means anti-black starts to, make sense. Or they don’t, they don’t say woke means anti-black. They say, when conservatives use the word woke as a pejorative, they mean anti-black.  

So in a weird, warped, twisted way, if you, for a second put yourself in the shoes of the Left, then what they’re saying makes sense. But only if you understand the premise of what they’re doing. This manipulative strategy where they redefine words, redefining words, is an age old communist tactic. It’s not the first time that we’ve seen this. It won’t be the last, but the Left has done ha ha is doing it now in our modern political environment in a way that they have not done before.  

And so I wanna talk about, this is part three of that conversation that we’ve been having all week, because when the Left, and this is what Dr. James Lizzie was talking about on Thursday, by, when the Left uses, when the Left uses the word woke, not when conservatives like erase you, using it as an insult. You looking at, at Disney and saying, you’re woke, you looking at Kamala Harris and saying, you’re woke. No, not that stuff.  

When the Left uses the word woke, and they use it in a positive way, what they mean is they mean, critical consciousness. Now, what is critical consciousness? You can, you can listen to the episode yesterday for a longer definition of critical consciousness from, from James Lindsay. But critical consciousness is a term that was invented by, Marxist from Brazil named Paulo Frier. And it essentially means, it essentially means are you looking at life through the lens of Marxism?  

It’s, it’s a critical theory. So are you awakened to this, these, these glasses, these, these non rose, these communist colored glasses? If you look at the world through communist colored glasses, then you have been awakened to the way that you are supposed to, the consciousness that allows you to perceive the world the way that the Marxists want to perceive you. So that’s how the Left defines woke, and like I said, it makes a lot more sense then when you use it as a pejorative.  

I use it as a pejorative, because we’re identifying radical leftist ideology. The Left says, well, what you mean is you mean anti-black. So yes, if we are operating only by the rules of the radical leftist activists, then yes, black as a political ideology, that’s the same as Marxism, which you and I both know is an insult, a fundamental inherent insult to every person with black skin, who is an individual distinct human being with, with a functioning mind who can make independent choices and political conclusions for him or herself.  

That’s not how the Left, that’s not how the Left views it, because looking at race through the lens of Marxism makes race a political race is nothing more than a political. It’s this, fundamentally Marxist idea of the oppressor and the oppress. This came all the way back from Carl Marks himself. He applied it economically. The working man was oppressed by the ruling class, therefore, the working man must overthrow the working class. And that revolution would then impose Marxism. It would abolish capitalism. The modern Marxists do this with culture, and they can’t just do this in a vague way with culture.  

They have to have characteristics that are divisive or can be divisive characteristics they can use, they can weaponize to divide a population. And, since mankind is prone to sin, since racism is a sin, the cultural Marxists of today know that they can use race as that dividing point, that political to put one category of people through no fault of their own in a category and label them oppress, and another pe another, another category of people in another, in another bucket, and label them oppressors through no fault of their own.  

So, as I said, looking at race through the eyes of the Left, then race is not just skin color. It is a structure. It’s a a political structure. And of course, this is all very confusing, right? Your mind might be spitting right now. Mine kind of is, and I’m the one, I’m the one describing this.  

So I feel you, I see, I hear you on this. But the purpose of this convoluted nonsense is to confuse people. That’s the, that’s the literal purpose of this strategy, that the Left is waging against us. So when I criticize wokeness, which I will do until the day I die, they, the radical left can accuse me of being anti-black. Now, I’m not anti-black, and I am horrified, properly horrified at the idea of, racism as every good person is. So what do I do if I’m worried about, if I’m worried about this backlash?  

What is my choice here? Well, do I change my politics so that I’m not falsely accused of something, that everyone is just revolted by the idea of being accused of being a racist. So what do I do? Do I change my behavior to avoid that accusation? Do I change my politics? And the answer to that is a lot of people do. A lot of people do just that.  

A lot of people, in order to avoid the accusation of being racist, they change their politics because maybe they aren’t political ideologues in the first place. Maybe they’re just living their lives. And politics isn’t, isn’t their thing, isn’t their hobby. And that what I just described is the purpose. That’s the, that’s the application of linguistic capture. This is why the Marxists redefine words, they, in this case, it was the redefinition of words related to race.  

But the purpose of that is so that they can use your understanding of the word against you, whereas they’ve actually redefined the word to mean something totally different. And oftentimes, this, by the way, is not like an official government policy. This is pushed by activists, by it’s embraced by corporations, by individuals, by politicians, all and a lot of people too voters, before it seeps into the fabric of our government.  

It becomes a cultural thing before it’s a political thing, but at which point the culture has been captured by, by this ideology, by this woke ideology, what comes next? That’s what we’re gonna talk about today, because the next phase of, of linguistic capture is government codifying, linguistic capture in order to cement their political agenda. So we’re gonna talk about that today, and we’re going to start with the Secretary General of the United Nations, who has a very dangerous message for governments all around the world. Let’s get to it.  

Okay, the Secretary General of the United Nations. Quick little quiz here. Do you know who it is? Oh, yeah. A lot of people don’t, a lot of people don’t. I gotta admit, the reason I ask that is because when I saw this video, I was like, who is this guy? Who is this? Who is this fool?, his name is Antonio Gutierrez. He is the current Secretary General of the United Nations, and he is a very bad man, very, very bad man. His most recent, he, he’s exactly what you would expect for the United Nations.  

He’s exactly the person that you would expect to be at the helm of this terrible, corrupt organization that the United States should not be funding. That’s a topic that that’ll come later in the show. Let me not get ahead of myself or get ahead of myself. Antonio Gutierrez called for, governments to start taking action on citizens who use what he terms misinformation and disinformation online about climate change. And take a look at what he is calling for governments to do.  

We’ll call for action from everyone with influence on the spread of means. And this information on the internet, governments, regulators, policy makers, technology companies, the media, civil society, stop the hate, set up strong guard rails, be accountable for language that causes harm. And as part of my report to our common agenda, we are convening all stakeholders around the code of conduct for information integrity on digital platforms. And we’ll also further strengthen our focus on our means and disinformation are impacting progress on global issues, including the climate crisis.  

And by the way, shame on us for not paying more attention to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Oftentimes, when we talk about the United Nations, we talk about different, different initiatives, different different committees, different councils of the United Nations, whether that’s comprehensive sex ed, whether that’s, you know, the so-called Human Rights Council, whatever it is. Oftentimes we don’t talk about the leadership at the un.  

Antonio Gutierrez has been the Secretary General since 2017. That’s a long time. That’s like Ronna Romney McDaniel in charge of the R n c long time. And this man is incredibly powerful. The United Nations is incredibly powerful when it comes to not just culture wars, not just the organization of the international community of nations, nothing like that, not international law. He’s incredibly powerful when it comes to a radical leftist agenda Marxist agenda. What he’s calling for in this clip is not just for private companies like big tech to censor speech that’s bad enough.  

He’s calling for governments to take action. So think about Nina Janowitz. Remember the woman who, was supposed to be the disinformation czar under Biden until all of her horrible Marxist, ideology came to light all of her terrible thoughts or terrible tweets. And you know, the video of her singing the Mary Poppins song as a parody of disinformation, which was just, not Mary Poppins. It was scary poppins, downright creepy there. Antonio Gutierrez is calling for governments around the world to actually censor citizens.  

When citizens speak out against the ideology that the United Nations is pushing on climate change specifically. And this is what he said. He said, I have a special message for fossil fuel producers and their enablers scrambling to expand production and raking in monster profits. If you cannot set a credible course for net zero with 2025 or 2030 targets covering all your operations, you should not be in business. Your core product is our core problem. We need a renewables revolution, not a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence. Does that give you the chills? You should not be in business. The UN Secretary General tells fossil fuel companies, if they can’t eliminate, eliminate all carbon emissions in the next 2025. That’s two years from now.  

And if anyone dissents from this climate crisis narrative, he wants governments to censor those citizens. So let’s back up for one second. Let’s back up and talk about the climate crisis, so-called climate crisis. Just assume for the remainder of this show that when I say climate crisis, I’m putting it in quotation marks. It’s what they call it, but that’s not, that’s not the reality of what it is.  

So let’s back up for a second. First of all, when it comes to this impending climate catastrophe that we’ve been told, we’ve been told is, is imminent, none of the predictions from these people, whether it’s the United Nations, whether it’s Al Gore, whether it’s Greta Thunberg, whether it’s AOC, whether it’s the World Economic Forum, whatever it might be, none of these predictions have come true. We have been told for over 50 years that our, our globe, our earth, our planet, is about to face imminent destruction.  

We’ve been told that we’re going to, all of the polar ice caps are going to melt. We’ve been told that polar bears are going to go extinct. We’ve been told that entire countries are going to be submerged and go, go completely disappear from existence based on, the rising, the rising water level sea level. We’ve been told that there’s going to be 50 million climate refugees that flood the West.  

We’ve been told that people are going to start cannibalizing each other because there’s going to be global food shortages because of climate change. All of these unbelievably catastrophic, catastrophic apocalyptic predictions have not happened. We’ve been told that U.S. cities on our coasts would fall off that they, that they would be submerged in water, that they would not exist anymore. None of these predictions since the 1970s through the 1980s, the 1990s, the two thousands, the 2010s, now we’re in the middle of the 2020s, and these predictions have not come, come true.  

So this is baseline for how we should view the adrenaline and the scare tactics that are coming from the Left when they tell us that a crisis is coming. Well, they’ve told us that a hundred times before, and it hasn’t happened a hundred times. So their track record is not very good. So we should give, give pretty serious pause before we take their word for it this time. And that’s an important part of this, because taking their word for it, if we don’t take their word for it, their word is the premise.  

This scare tactic, this urgency, this cl this climate catastrophe is the premise that necessitates, or that they claim necessitates all of their political agenda items. So they don’t want us to say, well, wait a second. Are, are we facing a climate catastrophe? Is there impending crises of the climate that’s going to cause all of these horrible, apocalyptic things to happen to us and our families?  

Is this actually gonna happen or are they a little bit off? They don’t want you and I to sit here and even ask that question because there is legitimate scientific dissent about how much impact human beings and human industry have had on the climate of our planet. I know the Left is very famous for saying, oh, there’s 97% of climate scientists agree that humans, you know, significantly condre contribute to climate change via CO2 emissions.  

I know that that’s what they say, but you can break down that meta-analysis, and it’s not actually accurate. They, they, it was a methodologically, faulty meta-analysis that came up with that number. They had the number in mind before they even went cherry-picking for the data. And it’s not true. There are many legitimate, credible scientists, environmental scientists, meteorologists, who question this United Nations narrative on climate change. There’s legitimate scientific dissent on this.  

There’s also legitimate debate, even if you accepted the premise for a second, even if you accepted the premise that humans have contributed to changes in the climate, there’s legitimate debate on how much we could repair or change based on political policies that claim to solve this crisis. Now, given where we already are, we don’t know, for example, if the U.S. completely eliminated fossil fuels, like went from, from what we are now to absolutely zero, it wouldn’t change a thing, not a darn thing about the climate.  

As long as, you know, India and China are emitting the amount of emissions that they are and that they plan to continue, to emit China, for example, is, is in the process of building over 200 coal plants all over their country. They’ve not even pretended to try to adhere to the Paris Climate Accords or, any standard set by those sort of bodies, including the UN.  

So even if the U.S. changed our political policy, what difference really would it make? Not to sound like Hillary Clinton, who has forever ruined that phrase for me, also, this is not taken into account, this is not ca taken into account the cost of eliminating fossil fuels. And I’m talking about not the financial cost. I’m talking about the human cost.  

The human cost of eliminating fossil fuels is that’s the actual catastrophe. That would be the actual, the actual, that would actually be apocalyptic because fossil fuels underpin our society, our modern society, not only are they, used in textiles, they’re used in medications, in in pharmaceutical drugs, lifesaving pharmaceutical drugs. They’re used, in order to have the food supply around the world that we have. I mean, if we don’t have pesticides and fertilizers, then we would not be able to grow crops in places that don’t naturally grow the crops.  

The the fossil fuel industry has been responsible. I mean, you can criticize G M O and fertilizers and pesticides and chemicals all you want. You know, I’m on board with that. I’m pretty crunchy. But there’s simply no argument that because of those things in places where there was widespread starvation and food shortages, it’s enabled those people not to starve to death without fossil fuels. The human cost would be enormous. And this isn’t even taking into account the actual energy.  

So if we didn’t have, if we didn’t rely on, on oil and gas, what would we rely on? Wouldn’t we have widespread blackouts and energy shortages? And the answer to all of this is yes, right? Like, these are legitimate, the predictions have not come true. And there’s legitimate scientific dissent about the human impact on climate. There’s legitimate debate on whether even if the U.S. did something isn’t going to make a difference.  

Um, the human cost is you thought the human cost of the covid lockdowns was grotesque. The human cost of a, of eliminating fossil fuels is hard to even fathom. Okay? So the people propagating the climate crisis, the U.S. Secretary General is obviously one of them, the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, another of them, bill Gates, one of the most prominent people in the world propagating this climate, this impending climate catastrophe.  

These people propagate in climate crisis don’t actually believe it. They don’t. If they believe that what what they’re saying is actually true, then they wouldn’t behave in the way that they do, and Bill Gates is the, is the best example here because of what he said this week. Bill Gates owns four private jets, four of them. And the grand total of how much his private jets are worth financially is $194 million.  

That’s the combined net worth of his four jets. He flies in 2017. This is the specific, statistic from 2017. He flew 213,000 miles on 59 private jet flights for a total of 1,760 tons of CO2 emissions, which is 109 times higher than, the average U.S. per capita carbon emissions. That’s how big Bill Gates carbon footprint is just by his private jet use.  

And yet, bill Gates tells us that if we don’t what eat bugs and take his vaccines, that the climate is going to, the climate is going to implode, in a matter of minutes, but he justifies his own use of a private jet. He justifies it and it says it’s totally okay for me. And wait until you hear the reason why. Take a listen.  

Let me put it to you directly. What do you say to the charge that if you are a climate change campaigner, but you also travel around the world on a private jet, you’re a hypocrite?  

Well, I buy the gold standard of funding clime works to do direct air capture that far exceeds my family’s carbon footprint, and I spend billions of dollars on climate innovation. So, you know, should I stay at home and not come to Kenya and learn about farming and malaria anyway? I mean, I’m comfortable with the idea that not only am I not part of the problem by paying for the offsets, but, also through the billions that my breakthrough energy group is spending, that I’m part of the solution.  

His question, should I stay at home? Yes, bill Gates, that’s exactly what you should do. You should stay home and please, God never let us hear from you again. That’s the first problem with this. The second problem is that his premise here is so, is completely elitist. His premise is that he has enough money that he can buy his way into, into a private jet. When you, because you don’t have money, don’t have a right to have that carbon footprint. It’s not just a matter of access.  

Like I don’t have the money. I don’t have 190 million to buy four private jets either, and that’s fine. I’ll fly commercial, but I am not making the argument that I’m not making the moral argument. That’s simply a practical argument that if you don’t have 190 million to buy a fleet of private jets, well, okay, you don’t have the practical access to it, but he’s saying his money buys him the moral access, his money buys him the moral permission to fly on private jets when people who don’t have enough money aren’t able to purchase that moral standard that is grotesque, grotesque.  

The third problem here goes back to what we were talking about with James Lindsay yesterday, how this cult of woke is structured like an actual cult. It is structured with, with an outer circle who people who participate in the traditions, not the traditions, that’s too positive, award the religious rituals, but don’t really know what it means, that’s maybe the general voting demographic of the Democratic party, right? 

Then you have people that are in the inner circle, in the inner circle who are in full knowledge of the doctrine of the cult. So the Ibram X Kendis, the AOCs, the Kimberly Crenshaw’s, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, they, they know what they’re doing, right? They know that they’re propagating Marxism. And then you have the people, people in the inner sanctum, the leaders of the cult who they’re the enlightened elite, right?  

They get to see the secret knowledge, and they know that what they’re propagating isn’t true. You can equate this with any kind of cult leader, the actual leader of the cult who tells everyone that he’s some kind of God. He knows that he’s not a God, but that doesn’t mean that everyone around him, even his own disciples, believe that he’s God.  

Because only he has access to that secret knowledge that he’s not God. So even his disciples who know his ideology, know the structure, know the abuse, they don’t know the actual, like, truth, and certainly not the people who are just propagating the religious rituals with their, their language. This is an example of that because Bill Gates is at the, as in the inter-sanctum of this cult, he knows that this climate alarmism, this climate catastrophe that he preaches, he knows it’s not true.  

If he thought for one second that this was true, he wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing, and he certainly wouldn’t make the claim that he can with his own money, buy his way into moral superiority over the rest of us poor folks who don’t have the money to buy their way, to the top of this cult, it’s almost funny if, if it weren’t so unfunny, if it weren’t so serious, if the impact weren’t so horrific on all of our lives. So all of this begets the question, right?  

Like, what is the agenda then of people like Bill Gates of this, these climate change criers, who are really just hypocrites, hypocrites to the point that you and I can see that they’re hypocrites, the people that cry about the climate change, their climate change invented crisis and also fly private jets, and why does their agenda require them to advocate for governments to censor dissent?  

That question gets us to the more pivotal, a more pivotal understanding of what their agenda is. So now we pivot over to the Biden Administration’s Department of Labor. This is a feature of the administrative state. We talk about the administrative state. Often the Department of Labor is an executive agency and part of their rulemaking process, they make rules that are as binding as laws.  

They govern our lives. These are made by unelected unaccountable bureaucrats who essentially cannot be fired. One rule from the Department of Labor that has just gone into effect on January 30th, about a week ago, allows retirement plan managers to use ESG investing in retirement plans. Okay? So Biden’s Department of Labor has issued a rule not from our legislature, from the bureaucrats in Biden’s executive agency, creatures of the administrative state issued a rule allowing retirement plan investors to use ESG investing.  

So what does this mean? Think about your 401k. Your 401k, where your, you have put money consistently in your 401K to save for retirement. Your 401K is invested so that you don’t just have your money sitting probably depreciating in a bank so that you can have some kind of return on that investment, that, on that money that you have invested in this plan.  

This is what, over 150, I think the number is. 152 million Americans have retirement plans that are affected by Biden’s Department of Labor’s, new rule about ESG in investing. Now, keep in mind that when you invest your money in a 401k, you don’t have a choice about, how your money is invested, not at all. You don’t have a choice in, about what companies your money’s invested in or what causes your money is touching. It’s supposed to be neutral.  

It’s supposed to be political, politically neutral. But under this new rule, the retirement plan managers who manage your 401k will be allowed to incorporate ESG investing into what happens to your money. Now, this is a big problem for multiple reasons, and I wanna break this down because this all ties in to the UN Secretary General and what he said about government’s censoring speech.  

And the reason that these hypocritical climate change criers those who are in the inner sanctum of the woke cult using climate change as their disguise to push an agenda that they want, what their agenda is and why they need that government censorship in order to achieve their agenda. So first, let’s talk about what ESG is and what it means for, for, investing. A little practical background. First is, and this is data, by the way, that’s not from, it’s not from like Hillsdale or Heritage, not like stalwarts of conservative policy.  

A study conducted by NYU and U C L A, name me two more liberal colleges, found that ESG funds, this is a study that looked at ESG funds, or funds that took ESG into account in their investment choices over the course of five years. Woefully underperformed compared to funds that just looked at that return on investment and didn’t look at social political issues as a reason for picking where to invest the money.  

In fact, this is the number ESG funds compared to regular funds had a 6.3% average rate of return compared to an 8.9% rate average rate of return compared to the ones without ESG. That’s, I mean, when I saw those numbers, I knew that ESG investing was bad. I knew that it was a terrible rate of return. I did not realize it was that significant.  

I saw that, and I was like, holy cow. Holy cow. A couple months ago I talked to Andy Huster about this exact thing, ESG investing. We were both at NatCon, we were on a panel together talking about ESG. I was talking about the social repercussions of ESG, the d e I stuff that ESG forces. He was talking about ESG investing. I sat down after the panel and interviewed him just about ESG investing. And this is what he said about businesses that focus on ESG versus businesses that focus on their business interests.  

The business round table come out with this, they’re not, they’re no longer going to be, focused on investor returns. They’re not gonna invest in, they’re not gonna focus on stakeholders, their customers, their employees, their suppliers, and their communities. And I said, but, but that’s like, that’s ridiculous. Those are the things you have to focus on to make a profit what idiots, CEO doesn’t focus on his customers, you know, and if you don’t focus on your employees, they go away. They’re your most valuable commodity. And if you don’t focus on your suppliers, they supply everybody else, they don’t supply you in a pandemic, that could be a problem.  

I love how he s this guy Andy Puzder, one of the most successful business, CEOs in the country, one of the most successful businessmen in the country, and I love how bluntly, he’s just like, what kind of idiot? CEO focuses on other things aside from their business interests, their profit. It’s not just cold hard money when it comes to profit. This means the existence of your business. This means you’re serving customers, you’re serving your employees, you’re serving investors.  

And of course, when you factor in other things, aside from the interests of your business, it harms those associated with your business, the investors in your business. So this is where ESG comes into play. So ESG A very, elementary description of what ESG is. ESG stands for environmental, social and Governance and ESG metrics are essentially a social credit score based on environmental, social, and governance metrics that are at this point.  

The universalized version of ESG is helmed by the World Economic Forum that should surprise no one, and the this ESG metric incorporates all kinds of woke political ideology into creating this credit score that is then assigned to your business. So, for example, the s the social in ESG oftentimes encompasses d e i, the diversity, equity and inclusion, ideology of left, which is not real diversity, it’s not equality, it’s not, it’s not actual tolerance.  

No, it’s usually racism, religious discrimination, and, and, and tokenism. But in order to achieve a good ESG score, your business has to propagate social practices on your company like DEI, in order to obtain that score. If you don’t obtain that score, then maybe you’re risking not having access to capital, whether it’s banks that won’t loan you money because you haven’t achieved this high enough ESG score or in this case, based on this rule by the Biden Department of Labor, that you would not be, a place where retirement plan managers would invest 401k money.  

You would be completely left out of that. Instead, when you’re taking into account ESG scores in your choice of where to invest, your retirement plan manager might be looking at a company like Disney and saying, oh, wow, Disney is really high on the ESG score rating because they’ve incorporated d e I and critical race theory and queer theory into everything that they’re doing. We don’t care about the finances. We’re going to pick them based on the politics of the thing. Now, Disney might be a functioning company.  

I know they’ve lost a lot of money in the past year and a half since DeSantis has taken them on in Florida. But other companies that make their business decisions looking first at ESG and not looking first at the interest of their business, don’t fare well. And that’s when you get this outcome of ESG funds, investment funds that take into account ESG, they perform at, what was that number again?  

6.9 or 6.3% return, compared to 8.9% return on funds that are just taking business interest into account. So investing according to ESG is almost financial fiduciary. It’s a, it’s a breach of fiduciary responsibility, and that’s what this new Department of Labor rule would allow for. They would allow fiduciaries not to be the target of accusations of fiduciary, fiduciary, breach of fiduciary duty because they’re allowing, specifically allowing this to happen, allowing your retirement savings to be weaponized as a force, as a force to forced woke politics on companies, because companies would be coerced into adhering to e SG standards in their business practices.  

Otherwise, they would be completely kicked out of the market just by being edged out by these ESG scores. The most deserving part of all is that 85% of the American people have no idea what ESG is. 85% of the American people have no idea that ESG is even a thing, let alone that ESG investing or investing in funds that take ESG metrics into account is about to happen to their retirement savings, that they unwittingly them hard-earned money. Think about going to work for how many years, 30, 40, 50 years of work, the money you put into your retirement. You worked so hard and now the government and these big banks, these investment firms are using your property against you and your family.  

This is deeply disturbing, deeply disturbing. Now, two Congress’ credits. I don’t know that this will have much weight right now. There is a bipartisan resolution, before Congress both houses that disapproves of this regulation is asking the Biden administration to withdraw this rule, it will probably come to vote in both houses because a resolution, a joint resolution as this is between the House and the Senate, it comes up for vote. Nobody can stop it from coming up for vote.  

It’ll then be sent to Biden, and I have no expectation that Biden would, that Biden would veto this or withdraw this rule. There’s also a federal lawsuit that’s being levied against the Biden administration based on this rule. It’s 25 states who are claiming that Biden’s Department of Labor has violated a 1974 statute called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which provides guidelines for how retirement funds can, can or cannot be invested.  

Um, pressure your congressman, pressure, your senator, pressure, the Biden administration, make your voice heard because this is not a good thing. But coming full circle now, back to the beginning, this is why the United Nations wants governments to censor your speech, the climate change crisis that the UN Secretary General was propagating that Bill Gates propagates that the World Economic Forum propagates. This is a convenient scare tactic because it poses in people’s minds an existential threat to everything they love to themselves, to their loved ones, to their lifestyle, to the world. And the only solution these climate change criers tell people to avoid this catastrophe is to do things like sustainability and environmentalism and ESG.  

The E in ESG is environmental, but none of their predictions have come true. There’s legitimate dissents on whether the climate crisis is an actual crisis or whether if we took action, that action would make a difference in the climate of our, of our planet, let alone the political and human, the political ramifications and human cost of eliminating fossil fuel.  

None of that matters when the Left is telling people that they’re going to face extinction if they don’t support things like ESG, environmental, social, and governance things, and that companies ought to be governed by not the markets, not this mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services that happens between a business and a and a and a private individual or a business and another business in a free market.  

This is exactly why the UN wants governments to censor your speech, because the climate alarmism is just a disguise, it’s a camouflage. Underneath it all within the ESG, within the environmentalism is a radical leftist neo-marxist agenda. DEI is probably the easiest example of that to see because d e i one on Earth does, does diversity and equity and, and the L G B T Q lobby have to do with if there were AEG legitimate climate crisis. It has nothing to do with it, but it’s embedded deeply into the same, the same ESG.  

And so the UN doesn’t want us to sit here and talk about this, doesn’t want us to dissent, doesn’t want us to debate, doesn’t want us to discuss, doesn’t want us to object to this. They want to codify, they want governments to codify rules and regulations that don’t allow words and phrases and opinions that they have decided are so-called misinformation and disinformation to be allowed to be spoken or typed or posted or broadcast or passed between us.  

The Biden administration also doesn’t want to answer questions about any of this, and perhaps that is why they keep Karine Jean Pierre as the press Secretary of the Biden administration, because as long as that woman is at is at the microphone at the podium, nobody’s gonna get any answers to anything. This was Karine Jean Pierre’s, there’s no other way to describe this, but her word salad from this week. Take a listen. 

How is it possible that this administration discovered, at least three previous balloons that flew over the U.S. under the previous administration, but Trump officials didn’t know it was happening?  

Yeah, so look, I think that, and we have talked about this before about how,, the, when it, when the PRC government surveillance balloons trans, trans, trans transited, the continental U.S. briefly, at least three times, as you just mentioned, during the president’s, prior administration.  

And once that we know of the beginning of this administration’s, but never for this duration of time as we know, this information was discovered prior to the admin administration, left, but, the intelligent community, as I said, is prepared to give, give, briefings to key officials, but this is something, this is something, sorry, post, but this is something that they were not aware of as we’ve just laid out.  

This is what happens when you get 12 booster shots, , you become incoherent. Here’s the thing, Jen Psaki, the former press secretary for Biden was actually very good at her job. Bad person, immoral liar, but actually very good at representing the Biden administration. Very good at speaking clearly, very good at pairing with the press dodging questions and, and just very good at being a press secretary. She’s very good at spinning rhetoric.  

The contrast here is striking because Karine Jean-Pierre is, whether or not you agree with the ideology of the Biden administration, this woman is simply very, very bad at her job. She actually can’t answer questions, she can’t speak. And the answer or the question is, why does the Biden administration keep her? Why aren’t they scrambling to find someone else that can do more? What Jen Psaki did, which she was probably Jen Psaki one of the most powerful people that has ever been part of the Biden administration because she was able to frame his disastrous policies in yes, a dishonest way, but a dishonest way that effectively that was effective at lying to the American people.  

The reason that the Biden administration is not firing Karine Jean-Pierre, the reason that they’re not trying to replace her is because first of all, she was hired as a token. She was hired because she’s a black lesbian who is quote unquote gay, married to CNN, literally not, not just the bias of the c n like she, she’s gay, married to a woman who works at CNN. She was a token hire. She was not hired for her skill, and the Biden administration, do they want to actually answer questions? No, they don’t want to actually answer questions.  

So Karine Jean-Pierre is actually their perfect, incompetent stooge, she’s their perfect excuse not to answer questions because she is woke virtue signaling just by her existence at the podium. She is the Biden administration virtue signaling their wokeness that also insulates them from actually answering questions.  

It’s almost the perfect scheme by the Biden administration to avoid the questions that they must answer, the questions of how and why and what gives them the right to take part in a scheme propagated by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations to foist, ESG in the name of climate change on all of us, including the money that we earned through our labor, when the end goal has nothing to do with the planet and everything to do with Marxist control of our nation by the elites.  

Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show. 

Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top