Glenn has two theories on why revolutionaries and protestors will fail

Chaos erupted in Ferguson last week, and days after the grand jury declined to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown, protests continue to take place there and across the country. Things have only escalated in recent days, with Louis Farrakhan loudly encouraging people to "tear this goddamn country up" over the decision. But Glenn said the protestors and revolutionaries like Farrakhan will ultimately fail, and he had two theories as to why.

Watch Farrakhan's comments below, and scroll down for Glenn's reaction:

GLENN: All right. So there's Louis Farrakhan. This is, quite honestly, stuff that is happening all across the country and the world. They're sewing these seeds and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in particular are sewing these seeds. The president is even saying, hey, let's keep this protest on track. I'm not saying the president wants violence or anything else.

What I'm saying is they believe it will work to their advantage to have an uprising. It's no different, quite honestly, than Occupy Wall Street. When you think about what happened in Occupy Wall Street. How did that go? They were talking about revolution. They were talking about the 1 percent. They were doing everything they can to pit the rich against the poor. Now, they're pitting the white against the black.

What did they find from Occupy Wall Street? They found out there were enough people to stand out in the cold for a while. Then it got kind of call, but then it's starting to get chilly and I don't want any of this stuff that much. That's what happened. It just dissipated. It feel apart. They were shocked. That's when Frances Fox Piven came out and said, look, where is the outrage? Why are people not protesting?

Remember, the Cloward-Piven tragedy was based on the Watts Riots. I contend that what they did -- what the real radicals and revolutionaries did, when they saw we couldn't pit rich versus poor in America, because honestly most people in America have it pretty well off. Even if you're struggling, we're still in the top 1 percent as a nation. The poorest Americans are in the top 1 percent of the rest of the world.

PAT: And they aspire to one day have wealth. How can you hate wealthy people when you want to be one?

GLENN: Right. That didn't work. They went back to the drawing board. And they looked at the original Cloward and Piven tragedy and that was race. You have to get the race riot to happen. You have to get all that pent up hatred on race. And unleash that. And you know that this is the strategy because look at what's happening at the border. Look at what they've done in the last six months. Try to poke race, race, race, race. And as soon as we have any kind of shooting with police, they will look to exploit that any way they can.

Now, the people who are on the streets in Ferguson, a lot of those are not from Ferguson. The real organizers, the ones putting this together are from elsewhere, as we showed you yesterday, many of the attorneys are the attorneys from Occupy Wall Street. One of the attorneys said yesterday, Occupy Wall Street is the gift that just keeps on giving.

So you have a different scenario happening here than what's being reported. What's being reported is this spontaneous movement, the same thing they were saying about Occupy Wall Street. It wasn't spontaneous. It was coordinated. Same thing happening here. It's coordinated. It's happening all over the country and happening in all the typical hot spots where all the real radicals are. Now, you're hearing people like Louis Farrakhan ratcheting his people up. You hear the uber left. This will go the same way that Occupy Wall Street did.

And here's why: And there's two theories. And I'm hoping one of these are right. You get to pick which one I hope is right, and you get to pick which one you think is right.

The reason why the progressive movement took off in the first place is because - as we've talked about in the book Dreamers and Deceivers, about Upton Sinclair - there were calls for revolution. There were calls for revolution. Communist revolution. By 1919, the communist revolution happened in the Soviet Union and, even Woodrow Wilson said, that was a "glorious revolution". That was power to the people. Finally the Russian people would be free. And he loved it. Progressives believed at the time that communism or fascism. They were split, which one would work. They no longer believed in the Constitution. They no longer believed in the Declaration of Independence. They no longer believed that man could rule himself.

There needed to be a strong centralized government ruled by elites. They all agreed on that. This was the time before Hitler and Stalin and everything else, so you can give them the benefit of the doubt.

They saw this new way involving medicine, technology, and superior elites up at the top. And those people could control the masses. They could control the masses through advertising and through propaganda, and they could get the dummies to follow along because the elites knew the best way to handle the country and the world's affair and what the world should look like. They could also weed out the undesirables through things like Planned Parenthood, sterilization, medicine.

We look back and judge them. But don't. Look back with their eyes. They had never seen any mass slaughter at the time. But the people like Woodrow Wilson and the people at the beginning of the progressive movement, they knew one thing about the American people. That is, the American people are generally good. The American people do not want violent revolution.

So the communists and the fascists, both of them wanted to change the system, but both of them wanted the revolution.

The progressives and the Fabians over in Europe decided, no, revolution is the wrong way to go because people of the West, they don't want the blood in the streets. They don't want that revolution. They don't like that.

So we'll have to take this communism or fascism, one of these two, and we're going to give it to them at a bite size at a time because they'll eventually eat the whole thing. By the time they figure it out, it will be too late because we have propaganda, we have the systems, we have the levers of powers. And so we'll be able to feed it to them and be able to play these games -- like Saul Alinsky lines out -- we'll be able to play these games to keep them off the scent long enough until they finish the whole meal. We will progress towards our utopian society.

And, again, look back at the time before you knew about the Soviet Union and before you knew what would happen in Germany, when fascism and communism were a good thing. These people are still trying to progress there and there is still the debate about whether we should take it through revolution or we should take it through the levers of power -- the levers of government and seize power slowly through the system.

But both of them are on full speed because they don't trust one another. It's why you're seeing the president's people fall away from him. The real radicals. The Cornel Wests, if you will, of the world. They're falling away from the president. They're calling him a traitor. Why? Because they know what he believes, but he's fallen in the progressive camp and said, let's just take it one step at a time. Where the Cornel West people are like, take it. You have it, take it.

So the same argument that was happening in the 1919 era, Woodrow Wilson era, is still happening today between the radicals. They both -- they both agree on the destination, totalitarian government of some form. They just don't agree on the vehicle that will take them there and how long it will take them.

But I go back to their original premise: The American people don't like violence. They don't like revolution. They don't burn things down in the streets. They reject that. That's not just the progressives of the early 20th century. That's people like Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King knew, peaceful, peaceful marches. That was the secret. Not violence.

Malcolm X, now today our Malcolm X is Louis Farrakhan. Malcolm X knew the opposite. Take it. Take it. Burn it down. Take it. Cloward and Piven know the opposite. Take it, burn it down. Destroy it. Force them to have talks with you.

This is why it's going to fail. It will fail for one of two reasons. You decide which one, but it will be one of these two, I believe. You decide why -- which one of these will be the leading indicator. And if that's good.

But, one, it will fail because Martin Luther was right. The American people are better than this. The American people are not revolutionaries at heart. They're evolutionaries at heart. But they're not revolutionaries. They're not violent people. How many countries did Hitler need to take over and how many people did he need to kill before we were in that fight? Same thing with World War I.

By the way, both happened under progressive presidents. Why? How long did it take us to get to the Civil War? And did we really want to fight that? How long did it take us to get to the American Revolution? Twenty-five years?

This is not something -- we're not quick to run to the gun. We don't like revolution. We didn't embrace Occupy Wall Street because it didn't take very long to see that it was powered by hatred.

Americans reject things powered by hatred.

PAT: I like that reason.

GLENN: Here's the other reason.

And this may be the reason -- I'm holding my -- I'm holding on to the first reason. But it actually may be this.

We don't give a flying crap. We don't care that much anymore. We're lazy. I'm not -- I'll go out and steal a TV maybe. But I'm not -- revolution? I don't really care that much. We're lazy.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We don't care enough about anything.

PAT: Including the revolutionaries?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Including the revolutionaries. They don't care enough to get off their dead butts, get away from the video game, and go ransack the town.

GLENN: Yeah. There's a few, but there's not very many.

Most of them are like, look, it's too cold. It's too hot. That's too much trouble. I got to drive, where? I have to do, what?

PAT: I will say this, last week when it got cold in Missouri, it settled the town down.

STU: That was some of the speculation by the protesters that they were waiting to release the decision until it got cold so people wouldn't come out and protest. I don't know if that's accurate.

PAT: It would be smart.

GLENN: It proves the point that I think both of these will play a role. That we are generally peace-loving people, but we're also pretty lazy.

STU: Once you have the TV and video game, there's nothing to get up and loot. You're already there.

GLENN: I'll stay home.

PAT: You wanted revolution so you could get the TV and video game. Now you have it. So don't worry about it.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive debate coverage!

Bill Pugliano / Stringer, Grant Baldwin / Stringer | Getty Images

Join Glenn TONIGHT, September 10, at 8 p.m. Eastern, for his LIVE coverage of the ABC News Presidential Debate!

Don't rely on the mainstream media to spoon-feed you their spin on the debate. Dodge the censorship and decide for yourself! Join the BlazeTV livestream tonight to get the debate coverage America deserves: the pure, uncensored truth. Plus you'll get to be the first to see Glenn's LIVE reaction to the debate as it goes down!

If you become a BlazeTV+ subscriber today, you can gain access to the live chat with your favorite hosts, including Glenn, Stu, Liz Wheeler, and more as they share their thoughts on the debate. Go to BlazeTV.com/debate and get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount we’ve ever offered, so don’t miss out! See you TONIGHT at 8!

You do NOT want to miss it!

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.


Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.