GlennBeck.com Exclusive: The Power of Local

Regional self-reliance is more than just farmers markets—it’s the cornerstone of democracy

By Daniel Suarez

The American middle class is shrinking. You might already be feeling the pressure. According to a 2007 study by the Pew Charitable Trust, men in their 30’s now earn 12% less, adjusted for inflation, than men of the same age did in 1974. That’s a median annual salary of $35,010 today versus the equivalent of $40,210 thirty-five years ago. And that study was published before the current recession put more downward pressure on wages.

Generation Y will most likely have it even worse. MIT Economics Professor David H. Autor's recent study finds that if long-term job market trends continue, the person asking "Do you want fries with that?" is increasingly likely to have a college education. And young people are taking on unprecedented levels of debt to get those college degrees—often graduating with $100,000 or more in student loans.

Why is this happening? Americans everywhere are working harder, longer, and faster just to maintain their current situation. Yet, for many, it’s still not enough. More important, widespread public outrage about jobs and the economy seems to have little or no effect on either government policy or corporate behavior.

There’s a growing disconnect between average people and their government – regardless of your political persuasion. Even if super-majorities of citizens want something to happen, that doesn’t mean their government will respond. Why? Where has our collective political power gone?

Economic Sovereignty

The answer is right in front of you whenever you make a purchase. Most of the products and financial services you consume are produced far away from where you live. If it’s a physical product, it was most likely produced in Asia. If it’s a financial product, it was probably produced on Wall Street. By contrast, what does your city or county produce?

Unsure?  You’re not alone.

Even if you do know what your region makes, it’s most likely over-specialized. The net result is loss of regional independence. For example the farm state of Iowa imports 70% of its food due to specialization in hybrids of corn and soybeans that are not directly edible to humans. They instead require industrial processing to break them down into fractional molecules, which in turn become additives for value-added processed foods—some of which actually make it back to Iowa supermarket shelves. And yet, even though American farmers are more productive than ever, the corporate entities below and above them in the supply chain have profited far more from the green revolution. That’s because farmers have little leverage with their primary customer—big agribusiness.

The fact is that any non-symbiotic relationship is bound to have an imbalance of power. Put more plainly: you need multi-national corporations more than they need you. In the context of democracy, that means the public doesn’t really have as much political authority as they think. The pervasive influence of lobbyists in Washington demonstrates this point.

Left or right, money is critical to getting elected in America.  In the year 2000, candidates who raised the most money won 93 percent of the seats up for election in Congress. (USPIRG Report 1/3/01). This is why politicians respond to those who can bring a steady flow of campaign contributions. Who brings that money? Almost certainly it’s not you. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002 elections. So if you’re angry at the government because you feel it’s not responsive to the American people, now you know why: money is what wins elections, and lobbyists—not average Americans—bring a steady flow of money.

But what if all that money didn’t flow into distant corporate coffers but instead stayed right in your region? The balance of power would be turned upside down.

Regional self-reliance is more than a 'buy local' movement -- it's the cornerstone of democracy.  In fact, it always has been. When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, he was describing an economic system not of multi-national corporations, but of individuals who would act in their own self-interest—human beings invested in their community.  If your region wants self-determination, they need to be able to say 'no' to distant power brokers, and you can’t do that if you produce none of the products and services that support life.

Regional self-reliance is economic freedom – and there can be no freedom without it.  Citizens can protest from now until doomsday, but unless they can supply their own critical needs (food, shelter, etc.) from within their region, then they will be forever reliant on distant masters—and ignored when it comes to national policy.

To have a real say in our governance (and to make our civilization durable), we need regional self-reliance, not global hegemonies. Regional self-reliance is ultimately better for everyone – including the corporations – because diverse regional strategies make it less likely that the entire nation will fall prey to the bad decisions of a few (a certain Wall Street bank comes to mind here) and thus wreck the national economy on which all commerce depends.

Protesting and getting angry won't bring control back to your life, but helping to redevelop local economies around critical industries will give you control of your life again. Living locally is not just good for the environment—it’s good for the nation.

Daniel Suarez is an independent systems analyst and the bestselling author of the cyber-thrillers, ‘Daemon’ and ‘Freedom™.’

 

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.