What do electricity and political power have in common?

Glenn has been doing a lot of research lately on the 1800s, and he has become particularly fascinated by Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Edison and George Westinghouse (who used Tesla’s technology) became locked in a heated “Battle of the Currents” in the late 19th century, which pitted Edison’s direct current (DC) power distribution against Tesla and Westinghouse’s alternating current (AC).

While the science of electricity might not seem all that pertinent, Glenn explained the significance of Edison and Westinghouse’s battle for superiority on radio this morning.

In the early years of electricity distribution, Edison’s direct current became the gold standard in the United States. The majority of Europe, on the other hand, used alternating current technology, and Tesla patented motors using this distribution technique in the U.S. Westinghouse Electric company licensed these patents for use, recognizing its inherent superiority to the DC system that was currently in use.

Edison was well aware that his product was inferior to the AC motor Tesla developed. He had all of his money tied up in DC technology, and yet it became clear that DC was not the future. To oversimplify the matter, DC distribution basically required you to have a power plant in very close proximity to the item that required power (i.e. light bulb). Furthermore, the power emitted in DC distribution was extremely low. DC power was remarkably safe but completely unworkable.

Editor’s Note: Neither Glenn nor the staff are all that expert on the subject of electricity and electrical distribution, so please bear with us.

It became clear that Edison would soon be out of work if he didn’t find a way to make his product relevant, and it is here that this story becomes particularly interesting. Until Tesla, no one had come up with an AC distribution system in the U.S. that was viable. But Westinghouse Electric now had the technology to transmit power from the dams in Niagara all the way to New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Edison recognized Tesla’s success and knew his business was obsolete.

“So what does Edison do,” Glenn asked. “Edison knows this is the end of his company… So he writes a pamphlet – a warning from the Edison Electric Light Company.”

This was no longer a “Battle of the Currents.” This was a battle for power.

“Think of this in terms of power,” Glenn continued. “This is an argument about power. What does [Edison] do? First, he says Westinghouse is just greedy… There's argument number one. Argument number two: anything that Westinghouse has, he stole. And some of the things he takes and changes a few things and slaps his name. He's rich and powerful. He’s a thief.”

“He's taking things that don't belong to him? Does any of this sound familiar,” Glenn asked. “Think of it in respect to guns. Think about what's happening right now, and why it's being done.”

Edison started by demonizing Westinghouse’s wealth (even though he too was wealthy). Then he accused Westinghouse of being a thief – he deserves no credit for the work he has done. Edison, considered an expert, came out and said that there is no way there will ever be a way to improve the DC system. He admitted that it was imperfect, but clarified that there would be no safe way to make AC distribution workable. He dug up stories on the horrors of the alternating current – someone dying after stepping on a wet wire or children being electrocuted for touching a down wire. Edison, who opposed capital punishment, went so far as to develop the first ever electric chair using the system of alternating current in order to promote the idea that AC was deadlier than DC.

“This had nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with power,” Glenn said. “When you watch the President today, understand that you may not be talking about electricity, but what you are talking about is power – a man's willingness to do anything for unstopped no holds barred power. That's it.”

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.

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode 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.