Haters Beware! The New Hate Speech Requires a Special Decoder

Do you treat people the same way, based on the content of their character? Well, stop it, because you're a hater.

"That indicates that you're not respecting their cultural differences, if you treat everyone the same. I mean, what an amazing journey from Martin Luther King and, you know, take people on the content of their character," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

RELATED: Virtual Reality, Hate Speech and One ‘Shocking’ Experiment

But if you think you can comment about cultural differences, think again. That's hate speech, too.

What's the solution? Get your special decoder or sit down and shut up. Or, here's a whacky thought: Treat everyone as uniquely wonderful and respectfully exercise your First Amendment rights.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these First Amendment-protected questions:

• What is hate speech?

• If a hater hates in the woods is it still hate?

• Why is it hateful to treat people the same?

• If your ancestors were white abolitionists, are you still white privileged?

• What country are you from? (Oops, that's hate speech, sorry)

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: I treat all people the same.

STU: That's called -- that's basically hate speech. You're not supposed to say that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Because that indicates -- we tried to figure some of these out. I don't even know. That indicates that you're not respecting their cultural differences, if you treat everyone the same. I mean, what a -- what an amazing journey from Martin Luther King and, you know, take people on the content of their character and not --

PAT: Where are you originally from? You can't ask somebody that. If they have a pronounced accent, you can't say, "Oh, hey, it's great to have you. Where you originally from?" No, that's offensive. Because you're making them feel like I guess they're other than American. Well, they are, right? They might be citizens now. But that's not where they originated. Is that -- how can that be wrong? I wouldn't care if someone said, "Where's your ancestry?" I would be okay telling them it's mostly Ireland. I'd be all right with that. That doesn't bother me.

STU: If someone asks you -- came up to you today and said, Pat, "Where are you originally from," you would say --

PAT: Montana.

STU: Montana. Right? There's an answer to that question. If it's a foreign country, fine. Or I would say New York. Jeffy would say hell.

PAT: Yeah, or south hell --

STU: Or Michigan. I know it was Michigan. Was it hell?

PAT: South hell?

STU: Southern hell.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: That's fine.

STU: The point being, that's an honest question. It doesn't indicate any hatred toward --

PAT: Here's another thing you're not supposed to say: The same thing happens to me too.

JEFFY: Oh, boy.

STU: No. All of our experiences are different, Pat.

PAT: They're totally unique. That's never happened to anyone. All of my experiences are uniquely mine. I guess that's the issue there.

I know exactly how you feel.

STU: No, you don't. My experiences are my own!

PAT: Some of my best friends are white, black, Hispanic. None of those are acceptable.

STU: See that indicates that you're trying to excuse your own racial intolerance by just claiming you have non-descript friends of another race.

JEFFY: I don't see color. I'm colorblind.

STU: I mean, think about that. That is on the list. I'm colorblind. I don't see color.

PAT: Isn't that what Martin Luther King said?

STU: The plea of the biggest civil rights hero in the last 100 years is the thing you're not allowed to say at James Madison University.

PAT: You are so articulate.

STU: Now, that is obviously bad --

PAT: That is -- wow, you might as well have said the N-word.

(laughter)

STU: Now, again, that is not okay to say, unless you're Joe Biden, who said it about Barack Obama. Said, oh, he's the first articulate black candidate ever. It's a storybook, man. Clean.

PAT: Clean.

STU: Like he was shocked the man was clean.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You're shocked a black man took a shower and the guy is vice president of the United States. But yet, freshmen at James Madison can't say it.

PAT: Here's one we tried to figure out the other day on Pat & Stu, saying to somebody who is in the LGBTQ community, what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, that's your business.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Why is -- what? How?

STU: How is that hateful?

PAT: I don't know. Or offensive in any way.

STU: And I guess the -- to try formulate the outrage -- because this is the issue here. None of us are offended by this, and the audience isn't offended by these things because we don't wake up every day searching for life meaning in outrage. We don't sit here and say, "Oh, gosh, please, let me today discover something that will make me so upset, I can try to ruin somebody's business over it." That's not how we run our lives.

JEFFY: Right. But by saying that, you're saying that you disagree with what they do in their bedroom.

PAT: How? When you're saying, I don't care what you do.

JEFFY: Exactly.

STU: Exactly. You should care, and you should honor it and respect it.

PAT: Yes. Is that what I'm supposed -- I love what you do.

Hey, dude, I love what you do in your bedroom with your partner. I love that. That is awesome.

STU: And, of course, any --

PAT: May I participate?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: May I --

JEFFY: I don't think you have to go that far.

PAT: May I join the two of you? Because that seems like a great -- a really wonderful experience. Is that what it has to be now?

JEFFY: You have such a pretty face.

PAT: Oh, you can't say that either, Jeffy, as you know. Because you know, you can't say that --

STU: If you were gay and someone came up to you and said, "Hey, by the way, I really love what you guys are doing in your bedroom," wouldn't you be like -- that would be the weirdest thing in the world. Get out of my space, man.

(laughter)

JEFFY: Make you put the camera away. How do you know what I'm doing in my bedroom?

STU: Right. How do you know?

PAT: Why are you even talking about that?

STU: Why would you bring that up? That's so weird.

PAT: Now, some of these you can kind of figure out. You're not supposed to say to anybody, "I never owned slaves." Well, that's because it doesn't matter if you owned slaves or not. The problem universal, anyway, right? Isn't that what they're kind of saying with that one?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: That that's not the issue whether you specifically owned slaves or whether your ancestors did. The problem exists whether you were part of it or not. And by your whiteness, you are part of it because of white privilege.

And I think you're denying white privilege if you say something like this. Is that right?

JEFFY: Okay. Okay.

STU: I guess. I guess.

JEFFY: Okay.

STU: I do not have my decoder --

PAT: Holy cow. It's unbelievable.

Featured Image: No Hate Speech movement logo

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.