Glenn Beck: Great review of Idiots



Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government


by Glenn Beck

GLENN: I'm just reading the I'm just reading the review from FrontPage Magazine of Arguing With Idiots. Have you seen this?

STU: Yeah, yeah, it's great.

GLENN: Holy cow. When I received a he writes, who is this? David Forsmark: When I received a review copy of the new book by over emoting radio TV talker Glenn Beck, I sighed and put it to the side. What put me off were the book's title, Arguing with Idiots, and the cover photo showing Beck dressed as a commissar making a funny face. It's not a commissar.

PAT: He doesn't like the book czar?

GLENN: No, it's the book czar, and he's telling you what book to buy. Let's see. Arguing with idiots is a waste of time, I thought one might as well have published a book called Exercise in Futility for Dummies or The Idiot's Guide to Banging Your Head Against the Wall– neither prospect appeals to me all that much. Besides, in the decade and a half since Rush Limbaugh sold millions of copies of his commentaries on issues of the day, enough talk show hosts have published books that reading them all would consume about 90% of my book reviewing time, and very few have proven to be worth the effort. But with all the heat generated by Beck in the last couple of months and the fact that I've defended him a few times from the likes of Keith Olbermann, my curiosity got the better of me. What I found was very surprising and worthy of my time. So here's the rundown of the good, the bad and the ugly of Glenn Beck's new book.

OLBERMANN: God forgive you.

GLENN: The book itself listen to this. The book itself is not just good. Much of it is really, really good.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Shockingly good.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: It reminded me of the kind of bestsellers that came out in the early 1980s, when free market thinking made its big comeback, aided by libertarian Robert Ringer's Restoring the American Dream on the pop thinking level, and George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty for the more philosophical reader.

But what much of the content of Arguing really reminds me of — and don't throw things at me — is the late, great Milton and Rose Friedman's classic of capitalism, Free to Choose.

PAT: That's what I was thinking, too. That's what I was thinking. I had the same thought in my head. When I read the book, I thought the same thing.

GLENN: I got Milton Friedman. That's what I'm thinking, yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, before anyone has a stroke or writes my editor in shock and disdain, I'm not saying Arguing with Idiots is in the league with the book that is one of the five most influential of my life.

However, I do think this book would have made Milton Friedman smile with approval. About two thirds of Arguing with Idiots updates the topics covered in Free to Choose. In fact, one could almost see chapter headings (if the arguing with idiots motif had not been adopted) similar to the titles “Who Protects the Consumer?” or “Who Protects the Worker?” from Friedman's classic. Arguing could have had a chapter called “Who Protects the Patient?” Instead, Beck chose to give the chapter a rather prosaic name, “Universal Health Care.”

That said, “Universal Health Care” is one of the book's most valuable chapters. Unlike some other segments, such as the one about the Second Amendment, Beck (and his team of writers and illustrators) does more than (very effectively) restate familiar arguments, Beck offers witty asides and on point illustrations (both literally and figuratively) while presenting a wealth of material that will be new to even well informed readers and veterans of the political commentary wars. Particularly terrific is a section on how innovative companies are meeting the demand for low cost insurance and changing the paradigm on how health care is delivered. This is something the current debate is sorely lacking from free market advocates, who too often are merely opponents of socialized medicine.

Back when the Friedmans wrote Free to Choose, private sector unions were still the major force in Democrat politics, with growing backup from the teachers unions. Industrial unions are greatly diminished now, and Beck takes on the even more insidious nature of public employees unions — particularly the SEIU and its ties to ACORN and President Obama.

Teachers unions also take a big hit, as they did with Friedman, with Beck arguing for freedom in the education system. His flow chart on how to fire a tenured teacher in New York City is priceless.

Like most libertarian leaning writers, Beck is best at economic issues, really good at arguing for the Second Amendment and other constitutional issues and weaker on social issues and history.

What are you However, as entertaining and informative as Beck's teacher tenure flow chart is “Presidential Smackdown,” an NCAA bracket type seeding chart for ranking the nation's presidents. It's a lot more fun than the usual kind of list put out by historians and apt to promote a much more detailed discussion than a mere one through 44 list.

Most people argue the number 7 seed William H. Taft's defeat of John F. Kennedy

PAT: He's actually going to argue the merits of the smackdown?

GLENN: And Franklin D. Roosevelt, seeds No. 2 and 1, respectively, is far too upset minded (Beck states correctly that the 16th Amendment passed under Wilson who he correctly eviscerates, but it was Taft who championed the Amendment and it passed shortly after he left office.)

STU: That's great.

PAT: He is taking issue with your seating process?

GLENN: Yes. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln certainly should have appeared in different brackets so they could finish first and second – but, hey, this only shows why the bracket method is both more fun and focused, and having Jefferson make the finals is in keeping with Beck's personal philosophy. Since I can't reprint any of the pages, blah, blah blah, blah blah, he goes on. He says the bad: Not all of the humor works, which is to be expected. The strange Mount Rushmore illustration at the beginning of one of the strongest chapters is unfortunate because it diverts some people this terrific section. Oh, I disagree. I stand by that Mount Rushmore. So then he goes on. You know, he doesn't like the idea the title is Arguing With Idiots. And then the ugly is the cover.

Look, I get it. It's a joke. Glenn Beck, the book czar, ha ha, and it's not even the goofiest costume Beck has donned since his live TV news gig.

PAT: That's true enough, true enough.

GLENN: But with the word fascist floating all around the place again and Jonah Goldberg getting the term aimed in the right direction, who the heck thought this was a good idea? Well, me. That would be me.

PAT: It's good arguing against it, though.

GLENN: But first of all, it's not a cover that will attract the unconvinced. For every one person who buys the book, a hundred browsers are apt to walk by, wrinkle their nose and associate Beck and his fans with the confrontational looking martinet on the cover.


But, you may well argue, how can you criticize the promotion strategy for the No.1 bestseller in the nation? Easy. Beck's audience is large and loyal, which is enough to get this book to the top of the list.


The material is good enough to convince doubters and presented entertainingly enough for the fan club to give and recommend to the uninitiated. That outreach is not made easier by the notion that giving the book to someone who doesn't yet agree with you is in effect calling them an idiot.

STU: I think basically what they are saying here is they love the book. The only problem they had with it was Glenn's appearance.

GLENN: No, no, I think what they are saying is they love the book but for you ready for this? But for those who judge a book by its cover, then it's a bad book.

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.