This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," October 6, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Hello, America.

I want to talk to you tonight and again I want to lead with this — do not ever, please ever take my word for anything. You'd do your own homework. You look it up.

I wouldn't have believed these things three years ago. When I found them three years ago, I thought this — this book must be crazy or this historian is nuts. No. It is all there. Just nobody ever pieces it altogether because the progressives control our history and our schools. But all the documentation in their own handwriting, in their own words, you'll see some of it tonight. It's all there.

In the next hour, you're going to hear some, quite honestly, horrifying comments and beliefs, so incomprehensible, I think, to the average American, and so graphic and so far below the lowest standards of humanity that you might think that I'm reading from a Stephen King novel.

But these are real people expressing their real beliefs and they are not monsters. They're not evil. It's what they believe and they really truly believe they're being compassionate and doing the right thing.

Tomorrow, I'll explain a little bit more of — about that because we have to get to the mindset. But today, we're going to find out what do they say and how do they get here.

I warn you, some of the clips you're going to see tonight are graphic and disturbing.

I want to start with a clip that we showed you a couple nights ago.
Journalist, columnist and author Virginia Ironside — she was on the BBC last Sunday and made this stunning declaration on the BBC:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIRGINIA IRONSIDE, COLUMNIST AND AUTHOR: If I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want — I mean, a deeply suffering child — I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face

(CROSSTALK)

IRONSIDE: As I would with any suffering thing.

And I think the difference is that my feeling of horror, suffering is much greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells because suffering can go on for years.

SUSANNA REID, BBC HOST: I'm sorry. I was just to introduce another guest there, but that was — that's a pretty horrifying thing —

IRONSIDE: What?

REID: — to say that you would put pillow over —

(CROSSTALK)

IRONSIDE: Of course I would, if it was a child I really loved who was in agony. I think any good mother would.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: This is horrifying on so many levels, the way she casually describes suffocating an infant as something any loving mother would do.

She's not a monster. She's not evil. She is doing what any loving mother would do. Of course she would. Of course she would smother her child.

Also, the way she refers to a baby as a couple of cells.

Perhaps the most shocking of all is the fact she doesn't even realize that what she is saying is that controversial.

I am a father of a child with special needs. My daughter has taught me more about life and God, I think, than any other one person. And she's done it without ever trying to. She's taught me more about myself. She's taught me more about compassion.

My daughter is — she has cerebral palsy. If you met her — and you most likely wouldn't know. She's brilliant. But it's been a struggle. And I can't imagine a world without her.

I'm convinced when I see people that have been labeled "retarded" by our society that when all is said and done, and we get to the other side, we'll find out who the "retarded" ones are. It will be us. Our priorities are wrong. And I don't think God will put a pillow over our face and smother us. We'll learn.

All right. So, here's a mother saying that, of course, all good loving mothers would smother their children if they were in pain, it's out of compassion.

Now, let me switch gears slightly. This is another clip from England. We'll get to America in a second. But this one is from the environmentalists who believe that if we don't act within four years, there is no reversing climate change. So they want to warn you.

Well, they're already trying to warn you about this. But now, they need to kick it up a notch because a nudge isn't enough. Now, maybe a slap across the face. What you're about to see is very graphic:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACTRESS PLAYING SCHOOLGIRL: We're thinking of using our car less. I'm going to cycle to school.

ACTRESS PLAYING TEACHER: That's fantastic, Jemima!

Now, no pressure at all, but it would be a great to get a sense of how many of you might do this — just a rough percentage.

That's fantastic!

And those not? Phillip and Tracy, that's fine, that's absolutely fine. Your own choice.

OK, class. Thank you so much for today. And I will see you all tomorrow.

Oh, just before you all go, I just need to press this little button here.

(EXPLOSIONS)

(SCREAMS)

Now, everybody, please remember to read chapters five and six on volcanoes and glaciation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. So, remember, they believe in Saul Alinsky, the ends justify the means. They thought this was OK. Nobody said this would be a bad idea, until it hit the air and when people freaked out, then they said, first, it was a joke.

It's not a joke.

They have now come out and said, look, there's only four years left to act. We had to wake people up.

OK. Well, what if there's only one year left to act or a month or 10 days or we're a year behind? What do we do?

If you literally believe the world is doomed unless we act and you've devalued humankind, what is drastic to you?

I mean, we've already seen the environmentalists. They've already destroyed careers. They want to ban people from getting a meteorology license unless you agree with them. Anybody in business who speaks up against them, they are deniers, they're destroyed, they're discredited.
You know, you're a Holocaust denier.

Well, when those nudges don't work, what is next? Hey, I know: How about if they send skeptics to court? Could you do that? How about imprison people who deny global warming? Would you execute them? I know you wouldn't do it with a little button. You couldn't.

But this sounds implausible, doesn't it? It sounds ridiculous.

Let me show you something from TheBlaze.com. Here's a story that is on there today. They have begun gathering a list of all those ridiculous and implausible ideas that have been said by environmentalists recently. Remember, the ends justify the means. They're saving the planet.

In June of last year, liberal blog site TPM posted an article — and quickly had to take it down when people started to protest — that read, quote: "At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?"

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for skeptics.

In 2008, The Guardian reported that NASA's James Hansen called for the trials of climate skeptic for high crimes against humanity. That's a NASA official.

In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown into jail.

In 2007, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said skeptics — said of skeptics, this is treason. We need to start treating them as traitors.

Well, there's more, including the environmentalist that said, soon, another generation will come and strangle you in your beds.

Find it TheBlaze.com.

We have trials, we have prison, we have treason, we have execution and then we have that joke on TV that basically shows that. Oh, and then another person talking about smothering their own baby — or a couple of cells — with a pillow because it is the loving and right thing to do.

These are not lone, isolated incidents of raving lunatics. I'll show you in a few minutes an ad that is running here in New York that will boggle your mind.

It would be horrible if these twisted ideas came from the mind of raving lunatics. But they're not. They're very rational people who just believe in things that are different than you.

Where did these ideas come from? Well, you can find them all from the same place — progressivism here in America, Marxism overseas and Fabian socialism in Australia, New Zealand, England and Europe. They are all the same thing. They are all the same stock of people.

I've talked to you a lot about progressives and Marxists, but Fabian socialists — look them up. You will be astounded what you find. It's all the same pool of people.

But Fabian Socialists was a society that was founded in January of 1884. The members sought to influence public opinion on socialism. But what they — what made them unique was, at the time, if you wanted to be a socialist, you needed a mass revolution. Well, they preferred the selective education — selective education. You've seen it here beginning under the Woodrow Wilson administration. It was the education of the powerful few, especially those in government and the media who could lead reforms in government.

It is why our media is so screwed up. And they all think alike.

Their strategy is called doctrine of inevitability of gradualism. What does that mean? The doctrine of inevitability of gradualism.

Let's say you say to your wife, Hey, I want to rebuild an engine in the living room. She's not going to do that. She's going to say, what the — what is wrong with you?

But if you believe that that is what needs to be done — you want to be able to watch football games while rebuilding your engine of your car and you want to do it in your comfy La-Z-Boy — what do you do?

Well, you can do one thing. You can drag the engine into the center of the living room and then she goes nuts. Or you can just bring a sparkplug and just leave it on the table until she stops noticing it. And then bring in another one, and then another one, and then another part, and then another part, the carburetor.

Pretty soon, you got the whole damn engine sitting in there. She'll tell you at first, Can you stop? Can you stop — can you take these away? You just leave them there. She'll forget eventually and she won't notice that you have all of the parts in the engine that you're going to build there in the living room.

It becomes inevitable because you can say: It's already here!

The doctrine of inevitability of gradualism.

OK. Now why the name "Fabian" — the Fabian society? Well, this is after General Quintus Fabius Maximus. He had a brilliant strategy. He advanced in his battles not through front-on battles, but instead through harassment and attrition.

In other words, he wore everybody out — almost like overwhelm your opponents, overwhelm the system. He would just constantly wear them out and just hit them, hit them, hit them. Little ones, hit them, hit them, hit them, hit them. Until, finally, they were just worn out from the harassment. And then it became inevitable.

Gosh, is it becoming inevitable that we just can't get out of this debt bubble? A little step at a time?

All right — Fabian Socialists, one of the early members was George Bernard Shaw. This is a man who is highly regarded still to this day, this is a guy who won a Nobel Peace prize, he won an Oscar. The BBC described him this way: an iconoclastic playwright, journalist, a scintillating public speaker, arts reviewer and campaigning socialist.

Well, here's what everybody ignores from Shaw — this. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, PLAYWRIGHT: Just put them there and say Sir or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?

If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us. And it can be of very much use to yourself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: It's not useful to you or to the society.

It's horrifying stuff. Yet I guarantee you, your son or daughter has never heard a bad thing about this man. He's critically acclaimed by the establishment.

It may be tough for them to swallow but he is a monster. No one talks about the genius of Hitler's good ideas like the Volkswagen. The good ideas don't balance out the bad ones! The man was a monster.

Shaw was a famous playwright, but he was also a strong believer in eugenics. It was George Bernard Shaw — ask yourself if you ever learn this, ask your kids if they learned this: Who dreamt up the gas chambers, the death chambers? Who did?

George Bernard Shaw dreamt them up to get rid of the undesirables. Quote, "A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people will have to be put out of existence, simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

I don't care that he wrote witty little plays. The man was a monster.

All of this stems from the same place: Fabian Socialists, Marxists.

And what was it that Hillary Clinton called herself during the campaign when she was embarrassed to answer if she was a liberal? She said this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: At the beginning of the 20th Century. At the end of the 19th Century and it came roaring in to America at the beginning of the 20th Century. They believe in what's good for the collective. They're also secular humanists. God at best is something to hang on to just in case.

They are the people that — you must have evolution. You must have evolution. If you can take God out of the picture and have evolution, this is all OK to do it.

When you think the way they do, you tend to dehumanize individual situations. Suddenly, you're convinced that it's OK to kill one person or two in order to save thousands or end suffering for either thousands or for one.

He's how Shaw, Sanger and now the global warming nuts all end in the same place where they're saying: So, we have to eliminate a few people or throw them in prison because they disagree, those in pain, those in who are inferior. And I guess now, those who are skeptics.

They have convinced themselves that the world will be destroyed unless they step in to save the day. It is the ultimate God complex. Gee, who did we say on last night's show had a God complex? Oh, that's right. George Soros: "It is a sort of a disease, when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything. But I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."

There are only two possible ways a society ends, if you believe in God, you believe in redemption. You believe the messiah comes and there's a redemption and it's a beautiful ending.

But if you have a God complex, well, you know that it's going to end in chaos. There is always something that's going to destroy the world. I mean, first, it was nuclear — or world war, then it was nuclear war, then it was nuclear winter, then it was global cooling, then overpopulation, now, it's global warming.

Chaos — chaos is the only end. If you don't believe in God, chaos is how it always will be.

So, somebody — the smart, the fit, those who understand — will step in and stop it.

This is where we're headed and I will show you where it goes next and how it travels from England to here and how much has already been accomplished and why you must vote — coming up.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.