Now Mayor Bloomberg wants to protect you from...social media?

Didn't think it was possible for NYC Mayor to become a bigger hypocrite? Guess again. Despite having a Twitter accounts of his own (personal & professional), a Facebook page, and multiple other channels, Mayor McFascist can't help but bash social media.

Yes, despite the massive growth of New York Cities tech scene, doesn't dig the social media scene. (Is anyone really surprised a tool that expands an individual's ability to make their voice heard and impact change isn't on the mayor's admiration list?) He disdain centers around many of things to be expected of someone who likes to restrict individual liberty: It makes governing harder.

Despite Twitter and Facebook's ability to allow Bloomberg in engage with the citizens of New York City on an individual level, he somehow believes social media creates new challenges for the government. Have any governments that protect the freedoms of their people been negatively impacted by the social media revolution? The United States seems to have more citizens engaging with their representatives due to the tools — they're sharing more news about what's going on inside of Washington and can get real time feedback from their elected officials.

The fact is, the only governments to experience real challenges and threats to power are the oppressive ones like Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. The same governments that are doing everything they can to restrict and block open, unregulated access to the internet and social media.

Mr. Collective, is of course worried about "the greater good," not the individual liberties of American citizens. Bloomberg, who has an active twitter account managed by his staff, just things there needs to be some rules around social media. Yesterday he said,

"Number one, I don't understand why people don't understand that anything you write, anything you send out, is gonna be retweeted, re-Facebooked, re-this, re-that," he said, at a Williamsburg press conference about helping the unemployed get jobs. "You should write down, number one, only things you believe, and number two, then think about how it would look if somebody else sees it. There are just a lot of young kids who are doing things on their Twitter account, their Facebook account, that later on is gonna come back and bite them."

He later added, "You can't talk about a complex subject, or a controversial subject, in a soundbite…The bottom line is it's very addictive, it's easy, you hit a button and nobody thinks that the rest of the world is looking at it."

"Now he's going after the First Amendment," Glenn reacted after hearing Bloomberg's comments. "Now, why would you want — why would you want people not to be able to tweet?  Why would you want people not to be able to use Facebook?"

On the surface, it sounds like he doesn't want dissenters given a voice. And, in typical Bloomberg fashion, he thinks Americans are too stupid to not believe everything that they see and read online.

Ultimately, it's all about control.

"Think of Cyprus.  How did the people find out about Cyprus?" Glenn asked.

Twitter.

The media wasn't doing their job and the story wasn't being reported on, so the word got out on Twitter that Cypus was taxing its citizens personal bank accounts.

Glenn explained that last week in England, they passed the equivalent of an executive order to put in a new Minister of Media to make sure that the media's all on the up-and-up when reporting about the government. The Parliament had nothing to do with the law, the Queen put it through, so no one can go back and change it at all.

What Bloomberg is describing is very similar. He wants to remove the obstacles to govern.

In a NYT article March of last year, Michael Grynbaum wrote about the NYC Mayor's disparagement of social media. In a speech the Mayor delivered in Singapore, he spoke about the difficulties of leading a city into the future amid a political cultures that is often focused on the short term.

The mayor noted that technology, despite its benefits, can add new pitfalls to an already grueling process. “Social media is going to make it even more difficult to make long-term investments” in cities, Mr. Bloomberg said.

“We are basically having a referendum on every single thing that we do every day,” he said. “And it’s very hard for people to stand up to that and say, ‘No, no, this is what we’re going to do,’ when there’s constant criticism, and an election process that you have to look forward to and face periodically.”

Later, Mr. Bloomberg noted that long-term urban planning “requires leadership, and standing up, and saying, ‘You know, you elected me, this is what we’re going to do,’ and not take a referendum on every single thing.”

The thing is, Bloomberg's words are just another example of his "do as I say, not as I do" leadership. His office has not been hesitant to use social media a political tool to push through his agenda. He's using social media right now to promote his nationwide anti-gun ad campaign. You can bet that mayors who support the Constitutional right of Americans to own guns don't find his campaign being pushed through their cities particularly helpful or within the boundaries of his power as NYC Mayor. But, it's okay when Michael Bloomberg does something, he just doesn't want anyone getting in his way.

"It's not going to happen overnight but they are controlling now absolutely everything," Glenn said. "They want control of your information, they want control of the media, they want control of your guns, they want control of the food. They want control of your money and the banks and how you spend it. They want control of your movement here and there and everywhere, through the TSA. Does anybody notice they are building a little trap, a little box that you're not getting out? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That would only be an out‑of‑control government that would do that. And we know the Western world doesn't have a problem with that."

In other words, instead of listening to what the people are saying, if he had his way he would shut it down to get his agenda through without any public criticism or challenges.

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.