Glenn Experiences Worst Interview of His Career With NPR

Yesterday, Glenn had what he described as the most outrageous, unprofessional interview he's ever experienced in his entire career --- and he's had a lot of bad interviews. Regularly taken out of context and asked to rehash comments from years earlier, Glenn has become accustomed to navigating challenging interviews. However, the reporter from NPR, who also happens to be a journalism professor, came in with a clear, predetermined agenda.

RELATED: So, Angelina Jolie’s Interview With the FBI About Brad Pitt Was Longer Than Hillary’s

"He wanted to get even," Glenn said Friday on his radio program. "Because he disagrees with me. He thinks I'm a bad guy."

The final question posed by the reporter confirmed his biased agenda.

"You would not believe his last question. And I guarantee, if you hear it on NPR, he's going to leave one part of his question out . . . the most unprofessional thing I've ever experienced," Glenn said.

An edited version of the interview will likely be aired on NPR this weekend.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How many toads will Glenn have to kiss?

• Why is it critical to reach outside our circles and talk to people?

• Why did NPR say the interview would actually be about?

• Did NPR conduct its research from 2006?

• What were Glenn's parting words to the reporter?

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

Yesterday, I did absolutely -- I can't say I did it. I was asked to be interviewed by the most unprofessional interviewer I have ever experienced in my career. The most shameful display of hatred and destruction I have seen in my career. And I've done some pretty rough interviews.

I have been as -- the boys keep telling me every day, "Stop doing them, Glenn. Stop doing them."

I'm doing it because I feel we have to reach out, outside of our own circle. If we just continue to talk to each other, we're never going to make any progress because it will be us versus them. And I've got to find somebody -- I'm going to kiss a thousand toads, hoping that one of them will be a princess. And, you know what, all 1,000, all of them may be toads, but I am not giving up that there is somebody outside of our circle that feels exactly the same way we do, that this has got to stop.

PAT: Charlie Rose may have been a princess.

GLENN: I think he was. I think he was.

PAT: Or a prince. He might like that better.

GLENN: We'll see -- yeah. We'll see how that works out.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I don't expect any of them to have the same attitude with me after the election, if Hillary wins. I know. I know how they treated John McCain and everybody else on our side -- there's nobody -- unless you sell out your values and you become, what's his name, that Brooks or whatever his name is. Not Brooks.

PAT: David Brooks?

GLENN: Yeah, David Brooks. No, he's the left. The guy on the right who is always a conservative that flipped over to the liberal side and he still calls himself a conservative.

STU: David Brooks is the New York Times conservative --

GLENN: Yeah, okay. So it must be him.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's who you're thinking of.

GLENN: So -- so I'm not changing my principles. I'm not changing my policies. I'm trying to change my approach and be a better person. I said when I was on Megyn Kelly two years ago, I don't know what I would have done differently when I was on Fox.

Well, I still don't know. But I know what I didn't try was trying to watch every word to not say something inflammatory. Well, that's really hard. To be honest, to be clear, to know what the difference is between turning over the tables and being very, very clear and being inflammatory.

PAT: Plus, much of what they call inflammatory or hate speech was just telling the truth. And they just didn't want to hear it. And that's what pisses me off. Because we said -- we called Barack Obama what he was, and that's a Marxist. And that was perceived as racist and hateful. And it just -- he just was.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Marxist -- being a Marxist isn't a sign of hatred. It's not a sign of racism.

GLENN: Well, there's nobody asking --

PAT: It adheres to a set of policies that we don't agree with, and we called him out on it.

GLENN: Right. Right now, there's no evidence that Donald Trump is a racist. There's no evidence of that, but I have heard journalists --

PAT: In the past, there is. But...

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Okay. But that's, again -- the -- but you're not going to hear people grilled over calling him a racist. Even though, there's no real --

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: -- no real evidence of that.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: You're not going to hear anybody grilled on that on the right. Do you think, Stu?

STU: I was reading a review of Dr. Strange.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

(laughter)

GLENN: I mean, it's -- I mean, there are people who are saying those things who believe it. Those who don't. And you're having a conversation, trying to figure out who this guy is. Okay?

I take full responsibility for -- for my cavalier attitude on everything.

Anyway, I don't want to get back into this.

Here's where I'm headed: I'm doing this interview with NPR. And they want to talk about the future of, "Can we come together?" The future of the conservative movement. That's what I'm sold.

They start --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. They start with, you know, something that I said ten years ago.

JEFFY: Ten years ago.

GLENN: That was clearly explainable. He has the tape. I explain it. He has the tape. And he's like, "Well, let me take you back down." And it's exactly basically what I said. And it's all out of context.

And they then he asks, you know, so where have you been, you know, since you were on Megyn Kelly?

GLENN: And I said, "Well, I've helped raise $11 million to help the Syrian and Iraqi Christians to escape ISIS. We have held the largest peace march in Birmingham, Alabama, since -- since Martin Luther King."

JEFFY: I've employed hundreds of people here in the United States of America. What have you been doing, WNYC professor?

GLENN: Stop.

So I did blow a gasket there.

(chuckling)

And so the last question he asked me -- now, tell me -- tell me how we move forward. If we don't allow people to say, "I take responsibility for everything I did and I've asked for forgiveness -- and there's a time when you say, "Okay. I'm done asking for forgiveness. We have to move forward." And if it's not on -- if you need to keep dwelling on it, it's on you. You've got to let it go.

I've asked for forgiveness. I've been very public about it. Now it's on you. You have to move past it. And if you can't and you keep trapping somebody in the same place -- if we keep doing this -- if there's somebody with a change of heart and they really have a change of heart and we continually say, "No, they're a bad person." Well, then, that's on us. Watch them. And watch the fruits of their labors.

What are they actually doing?

Okay. This is what he said to me.

He said, "So this is -- and I'm paraphrasing. "This is a big show. I mean, you're an actor, and you just say things for show. You've said you're a rodeo clown." Blah, blah. Isn't this just a way for you to make more money and grab a new audience, and isn't this all just for show? And, by the way, I consider that a rhetorical question."

(laughter)

STU: Wow.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: I consider that a rhetorical question.

This is a journalism professor.

STU: Huh.

GLENN: I didn't know that at the time.

STU: It's a great point on -- that you've made a million times about the way we are teaching our young journalists.

GLENN: What are those -- what are those kids learning in his class? That's a question -- and I'll bet you, they edit out, "I consider that a rhetorical question." I can guarantee you they edit that out. I said nothing. I let it go for about a minute of silence.

And he said, "Mr. Beck." And I said, "Yes."

He said, "Do you have an answer?" And I said, "No, you said it was a rhetorical question."

(laughter)

JEFFY: You said it was rhetorical.

GLENN: It's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

PAT: And is that where it ended then?

GLENN: I said to him, "I hope that some day you can find in your heart a place where you can accept that people do change, people are trying to be better people."

(music)

JEFFY: You can count on that airing. Yeah, no kidding.

(music)

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Did he start -- it seems like he started researching this interview in 2006 and then stopped after that.

PAT: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. Anyway, let's not do what they do.

PAT: No, let's. Let's.

GLENN: No, let's not do what they do. No.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program

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.