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.

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.