Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

October 18, 2016

Writer

It's time to take the plastic off the furniture and turn off the TV set. Millennials are the next hero generation queued up to save the republic. They're depending on older generations to show them the way. They don't care about political parties, they don't care about Ronald Reagan. They care about making a difference. So let's show them how to do it --- the American way.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Do millennials watch television?

• What unrealistic expectations did parents set for millennials?

• Do millennials think older generations are like old grumpy neighbors?

• Why don't more millennials know about Mao Tse-tung?

• Do millennials want your house?

• Does Glenn surf the Kondratiev wave?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So if -- imagine that you are a -- imagine that you're a millennial, and you're 20-something years old, and you're seeing the world as it is today. And you're watching people on television -- on television, which is no longer a part of your world. You go over to your mom and dad's house, and they're sitting on their couch, watching television, which you don't do. You don't do it. You don't sit and watch an hour of commercials in a television program. And so it's already kind of cute and quaint. It's kind of like going over to your grandparents when they had the plastic on the furniture. You're like, "They're just old. Don't -- you know, just go along with it." Okay?

PAT: I don't know if it's quite that bad.

GLENN: It's pretty close. It's pretty close. Millennials do not watch television.

JEFFY: No. No, they do not.

PAT: I mean, they watch it less. But they do watch it.

GLENN: Not cable news. Not cable news.

PAT: Nobody watches cable news anymore.

JEFFY: No cable.

GLENN: Yes, they do.

So the ones who are connected to politics, they're watching cable news. So they come over from their world into yours, and you're watching cable news. And you're seeing usually two old white guys and a young person, a millennial, a girl, a hot girl, who isn't talking at all like any of your millennial friends. Is like old people speak.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And you're rolling your eyes at her. Because you're like, "Total sellout." And the other one -- because you're like, "This is so obvious. They're saying the same basic thing. They're arguing over things that -- oh, my gosh, I don't know why my dad does this." Okay?

That's the world they're coming from. Then they go to their world where they're listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and everybody else saying that jobs are good. Hey, we're on the road to recovery. They're massively in debt. They have -- they are -- they've gone to college. All their friends have gone to college. Their friends aren't getting jobs.

JEFFY: If they are, they're underemployed.

GLENN: Yes, they're underemployed. They can't pay for their --

PAT: And let's not forget, they've been told that which drives me out of my mind. That their debt is not their fault, they believe. Which pisses me off.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second, they have now -- they see this crushing debt that they have --

PAT: That they accrued.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: That the old world, as they see it --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- has been encouraged since they were little, "You got to go to college. When are going to go to college? Where are you going to go to college? Got to go to college. Got to go to college. Everybody goes to college. Got to go to college. Got to get into a good college."

Everyone in their life who they're now seeing represented on dad's/grandpa's TV set yelling at each other about a solution that they know won't work, and they think to themselves, "I -- I mean, this doesn't work, and I'm screwed with this debt."

Meanwhile, while everybody has been saying, "Got to go to college, got to go to college, got to go to college," they went to college. And where everybody -- where mom and dad said, "This is the best college. This is a great college." Those people that mom and dad endorsed taught them that you didn't really incur this debt and this whole system doesn't work. And so maybe I do know a little bit more than mom and dad.

Even if they don't go that far, they know this system doesn't work, and they don't want to become like mom and dad, who are now in debt. Dad is still having to work. Maybe their retirement isn't coming through the way it was. They haven't really been happy. Mom or dad have just been kind of tolerating each other for a while, maybe till the kids -- they've drifted apart. Or maybe they're really happy, but they're -- they are under such pressure with debt because of the house and the lifestyle, that the millennial looks at and says, "Why not just buy a smaller house? Why -- we didn't need all this stuff, mom and dad. Why did you do that?"

STU: It would be great if that's the way they were -- that's the way they were thinking about these things. It doesn't seem like that's the way they're thinking about it.

JEFFY: No, it is not.

STU: Good example of your generational thing.

GLENN: Some. Some. I'm telling you --

STU: Of course, some --

GLENN: -- they're being indoctrinated to think the other way.

STU: Right. But let's think about --

PAT: Some believe they're entitled to the house that mom and dad are living in.

JEFFY: Exactly right.

GLENN: I agree with you.

PAT: Move out of that house.

GLENN: I agree with you.

STU: Why would you bring that up? That's a weird thing to bring up.

PAT: I don't have any examples, no.

(laughter)

STU: Okay.

PAT: I just know that exists.

GLENN: You have five examples. You have five examples.

(chuckling)

STU: The generational thing you've talked about many times -- and this is an interesting -- potentially an interesting example of it, the situation -- the old system is faulty. Right? We spend all of this money. We get in lots of debt to get college. And they agree that that's faulty. You know what, I agree also that that's faulty. My, let's call it, generation would look at that issue and say, "Let's execute a cost-benefit analysis. Is it wise for us to enter into this agreement that everyone is telling me I have to do and acquire all this debt? Should I consider being educated in a way that is less expensive? Should I chase a different way of approaching this problem?"

PAT: Should I have gotten a job in high school and earned money?

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on.

STU: Hold on. Let me just finish the point.

They seem to be looking at this as, it's not the idea that college should be required, that's the problem. The issue is, I just shouldn't have to pay for it. I completely accept without questioning --

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: -- the idea that I must go to college and must do all these things, despite the fact that I'm going to spend 80 percent of my time now doing schoolwork, as has been shown in study after study. That, I shouldn't question at all. I should only question the cost I acquire for it. And that's why we continually complain about them -- millennials looking at socialist solutions.

A real -- a real questioning the status quo, really, is to say, do I need this? Do I need to do it in a different way? Do I do it in a way that maybe doesn't --

PAT: Can I go to trade school? Can I go to a community college?

Can I go to a State University where it's going to be cheaper than Harvard?

JEFFY: Not without getting a job though.

PAT: You know. Right.

STU: I stopped talking already. Glenn is giving me that look of how dare you. How dare you.

GLENN: No, no. No, no, no.

I agree with your point -- I agree with your point of view. I absolutely agree with your point of view. Here's where we differ, I think.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you know how hard it is to cut your own way anyway? Everybody likes to think, I'm different. I'm special. I'm cutting my own way.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Well, first of all, that wasn't true for most of us when it was cool to think that you were different, but this generation, it's not cool to necessarily think differently. It's to think collectively because of their generation. Okay? To make things better collectively.

So they're coming to it from a different place than we are. It's why -- it's why grandparents usually understand -- have such a great bond with the grandchild. I've always thought that it's because, "I don't have the responsibility. So it's kind of fun." No, it's because it's an 80-year cycle. Your experiences are closer than the experiences of your children. It skips a generation because it's an 80-year we/me cycle. Okay?

So the grandchildren are looking at things much differently. Our children are looking at things much differently than we are. We were more independent-minded.

Also, at the time -- at our time, there were more people like Ronald Reagan, who were living this and saying, "Be this. Do this." All of society was, "You -- you can do it." All of society now is, "No, you can't do it, nor should you want to do it. No man is an island. You all have to work together for the common good." Everything is teaching them the opposite. And on top of it, who the hell do we have on our side that they can -- that they even relate to?

Because everybody that is on our side looks like me, sounds like me, does talk radio, or a stupid talk show on television, that come at that only their dads are watching. And they think their dad doesn't understand them.

There's nobody positioning themselves on our side that's speaking their language or even doing anything, but, "These crazy kids. Get off my lawn." That's who we're turning into, to them.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Where their professors are all --

PAT: Well, I don't want them on my lawn.

GLENN: All the professors are really super cool and telling them all the super cool things they can do collectively.

JEFFY: That's right.

GLENN: We're not. We're not.

We are never going to make an impact trying to speak the language of Ronald Reagan to a group of people who don't -- nor do they care. And in most cases, have been taught he's a bad guy. Nobody is going to listen to, "We got to be more like Ronald Reagan. We need another Ronald Reagan." They don't even know who the hell that is.

STU: I mean, I think that's the point I was making. In that, that's the generational gap. Right? That's the difference.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And it's not just even bringing up Ronald Reagan. They don't even know who freaking Ronald Reagan is.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: I mean, you know, we talked about them not knowing who killed more people, Mao or Bush. Forty-two percent of people were unfamiliar with Mao. Almost half of them have never even heard of the guy. So I'm not -- you're right on language, I think. What I was trying to define is more of like what their approach is. And I think you've tried to do this with guest after guest after guest, and Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after pendulum -- all of those things are pointing to the same general conclusion, that these -- that younger voters think completely differently about this stuff. And, you know, I find it to be problematic. I think -- I think you're looking at it as, well, how do we win them over, which I think is appropriate and is necessary. But, I mean, I do think it's problematic.

GLENN: But there's no -- the question I keep asking -- Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave -- and I go back and do my history and look -- you do not beat -- it's like standing in front of the ocean expecting to change the tide. You're not.

Now, how can you get into the water and work with that tide and that force and perhaps change the direction? Because that happens every time. It's why we have the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Very different things, all the same piece: We, the people. We, the people.

That's really important to understand, just that one thing. That was a generation that understood -- that looked at things as a collective.

Now, you can push back and say, "Yeah, well, we had the Bill of Rights. That was all about individual liberties."

Yes, because they know that the eternal truth was that no one is over you. But that's why they started it with, "We, the people." Not, I, the individual: We, the people. We'll establish this to protect these things, to protect the individual. We're going to get together as a collective.

Now, unless you have somebody who is teaching, "Hey, as a collective, we have to protect the individual." Because that's all they want to do. "We want to help the downtrodden. We want to help." Great. Well, there's ways to do that. And the two times before this wave was the Founders' wave.

And they said, "We, the people, need to protect the individual and what the individual -- because that is supreme." Where all of the other generational we thinkers at that time went Robespierre and said, "We are the collective, and we'll crush the individual that stands in our way." And that's already happening.

You disagree with global warming, they will crush you. You disagree with Donald Trump, and they will crush you.

We are in that scenario, that always leads to witch hunts and to blacklists, unless somebody on our side is appealing to the youth and knows who they can be. They've just not had anybody on our side actually reaching out to them and saying, "I know who you are. You're not who everybody says who you are. I know who you are. You are the hero generation. And people are going to try to misguide you. We, collectively -- you can change the world and chart the course, away from the death you never learned about."

When somebody teaches you something and you realize that somebody intentionally has kept a very important detail away from you, you don't run into their arms and say, "Hey, thank you for that." You look at them and say, "What the hell were you thinking? You didn't tell me about this part? You didn't tell me about Mao and 100 million people that he killed. You let me believe that George W. Bush was a bigger killer. I can't trust you at all." We have a massive win. But it's slipping through our fingers every time we betray our values by living something differently than what we say is important.

Featured Image: USA's Gil Roberts (L) grabs the baton from USA's Tony McQuay as they compete in the Men's 4x400m Relay Final during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on August 20, 2016. / AFP / PEDRO UGARTE (Photo credit should read PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images)

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep