Glenn Beck: Remember the Alamo

Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN: A lot of people call this program and they say, "No one's fighting, no one's listening to me, I'm tired, I'm alone, I can't do it anymore, I'm not willing, I'm going to unplug, this is hopeless, there are too many problems, the odds are stacked against us." Look at what's happening in the world.

I've been doing a lot of thinking for the last month on this particular problem. Where is the hope? Where is the true belief, not, "Everything's going to work out." Where is the true belief that we're going to make it? Because if you're listening to me and you listen to me on a regular basis, if you just stumble across me, god bless you, good luck, buckle up, you're in for quite a ride. But if you're listening to me on a regular basis, you're here for a reason because your gut tells you maybe, maybe that's right and it sounds more right than, "Well, don't worry, this package coupled with this package, we're set. Everything will be back to normal. In, you know, six months we're going to be out of this thing." I don't think so, that doesn't sound right. But now how -- for those people who just their gut says it's not right, how do you hold on? What do you do?

I wanted to look back at the Alamo because I think Texas is going to play a role. I don't know why. I just think Texas is going to play a role, and it's the spirit of the Texan that I think this country needs. "Oh, gee, we don't have to wear big hats." No, they don't really -- well, some of them do. In fact, a strange, a strange amount of them do. But it's not about the hat.

Most people don't understand Texas. They think that Texas is, you know, "Well, we're just going to come down here, we're going to kick your butt." It's not that at all. Texans, don't get me wrong, will kick your butt but, you know, generally they'll put you to death after you've killed their daughter. That's when they usually kick your butt. But they're just "Mind your own business" kind of people usually.

You know the Alamo, when you think of the Alamo, what do you think that is? Most people will think, "Oh, it's a fort," but it's not a fort. It wasn't some gigantic fortified castle, you know, built to try to hold off an advancing army. It was a mission. That's all it is is a mission. It had to be made into a fort, but it was the defenders of the Alamo who did just that. They made it into a fort. They faced insurmountable odds. 4,000 soldiers versus 188. 4,000 up against 188? Which one of those soldiers would you be? If you were the 188, would you be going, this is too -- I can't do it, I'm tired, we're alone, we're not going to make it. They were outmanned by over 20:1. This is just after Texas declared her independence. This is just a few weeks later they were forming the Republic of Texas. It was going to become its own country. Not a state. A country. The Mexican general, Santa Ana, demanded that they surrendered. And how did those 188 in the Alamo react? William Travis, who was in command at the Alamo wrote this letter: "I'm besieged by 1,000 or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana. I've sustained a continual bombardment and candidate for 24 hours, and I haven't lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender. I've answered the demand with cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I will never surrender; I will never retreat." I'm pretty sure I don't speak Texan but I think that means, "Yeah, thanks but no thanks." 188 men alone. They are running low on ammunition, they were running low on food and other supplies. The next day, another letter. This one, this one to Sam Houston. The commander was hoping that Sam Houston would get these letters and send, you know, "Help, help, help, help, send us somebody." He wrote, "Our numbers are few but I shall hold out to the last extremity hoping to secure reinforcements in a day or two. Do hasten on aid as rapidly as possible, from a superior number of the enemy, it will be impossible for us to keep them out much longer. If th ey overpower us, we fall a sacrifice at the shrine of our country," speaking of Texas," and we hope prosperity in our country will do our memory justice. Give me help. Oh, my country, give me help. Victory or death." Somehow these 188 men held out for more than a week against an evading army of 4,000. Have you ever been to the Alamo? It's a little -- 4,000 men advancing and 188 protected that? After ten days Travis was still hoping for reinforcements. He was still hoping, but he had no idea, he had no idea if they were coming or not. He understood the odds. He knew he wasn't going to be able to last much longer, but he didn't back up. He didn't back off. He didn't back up. He didn't whine. He didn't say, "I'm tired." He rode under the flag of independence, "We are ready to peril our lives 100 times a day. I will fight the enemy on his own terms. I'm ready to do it. And if my country men do not rally to my relief, I'm determined to perish in the defense of this place." Later that day he wrote one last time, "Take care of my little boy. If the country should be saved, I will make for him a splendid fortune but if the country be lost and I should perish, he will have nothing but the proud recollection but he is the son of a man who died for his country."

Three days later the Alamo would finally fall. The reinforcements didn't make it in time, but it didn't fall for 13 days and not before those 188 took out 600 of Santa Ana's men. More importantly was the number of days, 13 days. It gave 13 days to Sam Houston. He was able to put together a volunteer army, an army that defeated Santa Ana, gave birth to the Republic of Texas, its own country, its own constitution.

Here's the story. These 188 people, they weren't any different than you. Some of them were soldiers, some of them were just regular people, some of them were just, "I'm going to take a stand." You want to feel alone, 188 surrendered by 4,000, they didn't pick the place or the time of their fight. They wouldn't have done it at a mission. If they could have picked anywhere, it wouldn't have been there. They just knew that their cause was just. They just knew that their lives were worth lying down for what was right. They just knew that there was something bigger and more important than them. How did they know it? Why didn't they desert? Why didn't they surrender when they saw 4,000? They did it because they were committed to the idea of liberty. They did it because they felt they owed it to one another: "If he stands, I'll stand. I ain't going anywhere with your brother. We're in it together." When you feel connected to somebody else, you don't give up. That's how soldiers in the battlefield or P.O.W. camps rally around each other because he's standing; I'll stand. It's not about ideology. It's about our commitment to each other. It's about knowing that you're not alone and letting someone else know that they're not alone.

Even when you can't see the people fighting with you, even when you're in the Alamo and you're all alone, just 188 of you and you don't know if that army is coming tonight or never, you just fight on because you're not alone.

It's not just some crazy history lesson about the Alamo. These people didn't die to defend the Alamo which is now some place where you go on vacation and have your picture taken in front of it, and most people don't even know what it means or what it stands for. They didn't just die for protecting the Alamo or even Texas. Today they died to teach us a lesson, to fight on, to never give up. You're not alone.

Today, just today remember the Alamo.

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


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.