The Oval: The Dangers of Dependency

Good afternoon.

From this desk, the nation hears many great promises…

About programs to be launched… governmental agencies to be set up… legislation to be introduced… and laws to be signed.

It is therefore easy to believe that the person behind this desk directs all that flows from it. That all governmental decisions rest with his wisdom… or lack thereof.

It is easy to think that from this desk the giant enterprise of the government - all $3.5 trillion worth of it - rolls forward, like a massive tide that sweeps away all those that stand before it.

And in this time of year, with an election looming, that's how both candidates want it.

They want you to believe that they alone can take the government in the direction the voters want it to go.

You won't hear a presidential candidate say: "well, everything depends on which party controls congress… or which senior legislator gets the committee chairmanship to write the tax laws… or which way the supreme court rules on some arcane element of the law."

They tell you that they alone can deliver. They alone can tilt the might U.S. government in one direction or another.

That without their victory, the nation's course will be altered… for the worse.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Does anyone think that one man, in one office, can ruin America or save it? Have we forgotten the sad and long human experience with caesars, monarchs and dictators?

That whatever the ambitions or dreams or even intelligence of a single man, that the rule of one can never compete with the wisdom of a free people?

That is, after all, what set America afire in 1776 - the idea that a rabble of free men, organized into 13 different states, led by a weak and largely ineffective central government, could be better and stronger and more durable than the King of Britain, the leader of the mightiest empire the world had seen since the fall of Rome.

And here's the thing: the americans were right.

E pluburus unum - out of many, one.

Not… ex una, unus - out of one, one.

It takes many to make america what it is. Not one man in the Oval Office. Not 9 justices. Not 100 senators. Not 435 members of the House of Representatives.

We have to remember this, especially this time of year. When presidential candidates tell you they have a plan to fix this, or change that, or improve this… just remember: they can't do it alone. They can't do it because they were never supposed to do it.

The idea that the president is supposed to be this all-knowing chieftain is hogwash.

Presidents are ordinary men. One day, we will see an ordinary woman do the job.

They're not kings. They're not princes. And they're not priests.

Which brings me to an issue which has occupied the presidential campaign the last few days: How dependent we are on the president.

Dependency on government is at its highest levels in us history. It's been on a steady march, but now, most of the us government budget exists to support citizens through transfers of wealth from some people to other people.

Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. Food stamps. Housing assistance. It's all part of the same broad category.

Dependency.

Practically speaking, all americans, at some point in their lives, become government dependents. Social security and medicare - two programs nearly all americans draw from - are part of the big giant government dependency system.

I'm not here to debate whether this is good or bad. Whether this is what the founders envisioned or not.

I'm not here to focus on what this means for elections, and why this puts non-dependent americans at peril from an electoral perspective.

I'd like to talk about the moral implications.

What does it mean when every citizen becomes dependent on the government? What does that do to the individual?

It's easy to generalize about government programs, that they help the poor. Help the poor. We all want to help the poor. So if government is helping the poor, that's a good thing, right?

But we know that the poor often aren't helped by government programs. Often, they're hurt by them. The vast expansion of the welfare state has destroyed marriage, fatherhood, the impulse of parents to work to feed their children, the sense of personal responsibility among those who are at the bottom of the ladder.

Are poor people lazy and immoral? No. Poor people don't want to be poor. But government programs for the poor need poor people! Otherwise they go out of business. And as we know, government is very good at staying in business.

Show me a government program to help the poor, and i'll show you a government program that needs the poor to stay that way, otherwise the government program goes away!

Do poor people want to be poor? Absolutely not. But with vast programs, government make poverty an easier choice - and that's what turns poverty into dependency.

Most of us struggled at some point in our lives. Most of us drove a car when it was rusted out… wore clothes that were falling apart… ate rice and beans a few nights a week to save money… pushed the credit cards to their max. Most of us have been there. Some of us are there now.

There's no shame in struggling. And no shame in needing help.

But the question is: what happens when the government steps in and saves us from these problems? Do they go away? Do individuals learn resiliency? Do they force themselves to learn a new and more marketable skill? Do they discover what decisions led them to a place of need, and change the way they live as a result?

But dependency is not merely an economic state of being. There's economic dependency, and then there's moral dependency.

I'm deeply troubled by economic dependency. But what really worries me is moral dependency.

Moral dependency is what happens when citizens become complacent in their moral choices… in their sense of their own self-worth.

Moral complacency is what happens when citizens, egged on by a permissive media, look at the man sitting in this chair as a father figure, as the great protector.

When people are dependent on the government, the head of the government is invested with far more power than he is entitled… and steadily, we begin to accept the premise that the world spins on its axis right from this place.

When you believe that the nation's leader can actually affect your life, far beyond your ability to act or think, you reach the stage of moral emptiness. You reach the stage of moral slavery.

It's no wonder that when dictators rise up, they always do two things: first, they offer unbounded promises of economic prosperity - free health care, free food, free shelter, regulations to protect you against any kind of wrongdoing and unsafe products you never knew existed.

And then, they go after those who stand on the moral heights of any free society. They go after the priests and the ministers, the religious organizations who honor no god but their own.

They call them bigots…hypocrites… chauvinists… those who stand for something besides the government, we are told, are not to be trusted. "we're all in it together," they say. "we can't have priests telling us how to run things."

This is how dependency works. First through the stomach… then through the heart.

They understand that to seize power and retain it, they must have no competitor for the stomachs and hearts of the citizenry.

They feed and they clothe and they bring the citizens into a soft embrace. "those free markets are unfair… and dangerous. You need protections. You need help. You need us."

"You're not on your own anymore," they say. "Come in from the cold… and you'll be warm."

Thus they dull the instincts for individual initiative … not by banning it, but by making it harder. Dependency is therefore offered not as a form of slavery, but as a vacation from the "hard work" of a demanding job… a break from the "drudgery" of a work week… a change from the ordinary difficulties of an ordinary life.

Dependency makes it possible for an ordinary person to believe that the man who sits in this chair can reach through the television or computer screen, and touch you personally. Make you more prosperous. Make you morally righteous. Make you feel that you're part of a great society. And the best part is, you don't have to do anything. Just sit back. And watch the president work his magic.

It's a wonderful show.

But at the end, there's a price to be paid. I'll save that for another day. I don't want to spoil the fun.

Thanks for watching, and may god bless you and may god bless the republic.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.