Glenn Beck: America can't do better than this?

Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively

to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members.

Learn more...

GLENN: All right. So we're just looking up what would it take to be the

record for getting people out to vote for the midterm election. We went back to

1960, and what is the record since 1960, record turnout for midterm election?

STU: Be 1966, 48.4% turnout. And that I mean, the 60 up until about 1970, it was

over 40%, in '62, '66 and 1970. And then since then it has not cleared 40%.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Well, last

GLENN: I've never been over what was it in 199 what was it, 4?

STU: 1994 was 38.8.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Which, that was the big turn.

GLENN: That was the big revolution.

STU: And then in 2006 when it went away from Republican control back to

Democratic control, it was only 37.1%. So that's pretty that's insanely

depressing when you think about it.

PAT: It's almost unconscionable. I'm reading a story right now, remember back in

the first Iraqi election when they were under I mean, it was still, when

everything was just in such turmoil and upheaval and there were bombings every

day, I mean hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying every

day from terrorist strikes and there was the whole election was under the pol of

you might be blown up either at or on your way to the election. Remember that?

Correspondents reported from Baghdad a turnout of 95% of Baghdadis and 72%

overall in the country. 72%.

STU: That's an awesome term, Baghdadis?

PAT: Baghdadis.

STU: I want to be a Baghdadi. That's awesome.

PAT: You can't.

STU: I can't be a Baghdadi?

GLENN: You can be a Mac daddy but not a Baghdadi.

STU: A Mac daddy but not a Baghdadi?

GLENN: What was the turnout for the last election?

STU: Last election as of presidential obviously is higher, 56.8%, which was the

highest it had been since 1968? Is that right? Scanning it quickly, it looks

like since 1968, which was and 1964 and 1968 were all over 60%. Again we have

not cleared 60 since, but the last two have been up quite a bit.

GLENN: That's amazing. Look at that. Look at that. And what was happening in

1968? That was Vietnam. That was the Great Society. That was a moment very

similar to this where people said we're going in the wrong direction. We're

going, you know, we're going Marxist. We're going the Great Society. That was a

watershed election and it was still 68%. I mean, that's great. Can you imagine

that? And the midterm was 48%?

STU: Yeah, 1966, 48.4.

GLENN: Guys, I got news for ya. If this doesn't motivate your friends and

neighbors to go out and vote. I mean, I know they are all going to say, well,

there's nobody to vote for, blah, blah blah. If this doesn't get you to go to

the polls and stand there and just say, you know what? I'm going to hold my nose

even, vote for a third party, vote for vote for someone, but show them that we

are not going to be weasels anymore. We're not going to be little mice with,

what was it? With O'Donnell's brain cells in them. We're not going to be we're

not going to be sheep led to the slaughter. We are going to lead. If this

doesn't do it, what will? If this doesn't get you've got the Baghdadis going out

and 92%?

PAT: 95.

GLENN: 95%.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Going out to the polls.

PAT: And 72% overall according to a lot of surveys. BBC said 62. So still bigger

than any American election where we've got nothing to fear except maybe being

bored while standing in line for a while. That's what we fear when we go to the

polls: I don't know how long Iraqis stand there. Will they be serving coffee and

doughnuts in line? I don't know if I can do this. I don't have time. I've got

some shopping to do.

STU: Well, you do, you do have to fear, though, when you're walking in and the

campaign workers are just outside of the premises where they are allowed to be

and then they all assault you with their different campaign pitches?

GLENN: You're right. You're right, it is so

STU: That is irritating.

GLENN: It is irritating. And I mean, so much like when you were going to be

blown up in Baghdad.

STU: Exactly what I'm saying. And you know like last time I went to vote, the

wife of the guy running was standing out in front of the polls and you felt bad.

PAT: She was.

STU: She was saying, oh, vote for my husband, and you felt bad. And it's just

like almost being blown up. It's almost the same thing. I mean, it's basically

the exact equivalent.

GLENN: Paul Nunn, who is our artist on staff and done he is, you know, he's

designed so much of everything that we do. Paul, I want a poster made with a

giant purple finger and just says America: Can't We Do Better.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: Adopt someone or bring a friend to the polls. Make a poster with just a

finger, make it, you know, an iconic looking finger, not a picture but an iconic

looking finger with purple ink on it and underneath: America, Can't We Do

Better. This is obscene. I mean really, honestly if we can't, if we get 35% of

the people at this point, the politicians are right. The ACLU is right. The AFL

CIO. All of these people. The George Soros, all of these people. They're right.

PAT: Well, we deserve what we get, too.

GLENN: We do.

PAT: If only 35% of the people show up, we don't care enough. We just don't care

enough.

GLENN: Well, no, hang on just a second. I wouldn't say that we deserve.

STU: We as a society.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: We as a society would deserve.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Which brings me to my other point. Could we just broker a deal? Seriously

could we just broker a deal? Can't we just take, you know, Texas and I mean,

I'll take Oklahoma, Idaho. You can have one side of the mountains, we'll have

the other side of the mountains. You can have California and everything else.

Just leave us alone. We're going to build a huge wall because you are going to

try to steal everything and you are going to blame it all on us. You'll turn

your people against us when we give you the pick of the states.

PAT: And who are we giving the pick of the states to? Are you talking

progressives?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So they take Massachusetts, New York.

GLENN: They take the entire Eastern seaboard.

PAT: Okay. And what about the Californians, though? What do we do then?

GLENN: California, they can have California.

PAT: Okay. We just push it into the ocean?

STU: Wait a minute. They are getting wait a minute. They're getting all the

oceanfront property?

PAT: Yeah, let them have it.

STU: What?

PAT: No, we'll still got Texas. We'll have 2200 miles of coastline.

GLENN: Here's what will happen. Within five years this is why we have to have a

wall because they will turn their people against us. We give them all the best

stuff. Within five years they will be blaming it on us and they will be turning

their people against the people behind the walls saying it's their fault, they

did it to us. We'll be so unbelievably prosperous that they won't have any idea

what to do. And so they'll we'll just buy the oceanfront property back. It will

go for a song. Of course, we'll have to buy it back from the Chinese, but

STU: That's a good point.

PAT: Because that's who will be running the country.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

PAT: All the progressives.

GLENN: Absolutely.

STU: Do we get Hershey, Pennsylvania? I believe we should have that?

GLENN: No, but I believe we could convince easily Hershey to her part.

STU: Tough to move a town.

GLENN: If you did an Ayn Rand kind of thing where you're like, we're going to

take this part of the country and we're just going to do an experiment on it and

we're going to further the American experiment.

PAT: You choose all of your progressive ideals like

GLENN: We are.

PAT: You say that wealth is one pie, you go ahead and divide it amongst

yourselves, knock yourselves out. We're going to bake pies on this side.

GLENN: Yeah. We're the pie making people. You're the pie taking people.

PAT: See how that works out for you once you run out of pie.

GLENN: And we're going to build a wall because we don't trust you. We're not

going to we're not building any weapons. We'll defend ourselves because you will

turn your population against us. Because you have to have someone to blame.

We're not looking to blame anybody. We're not looking to blame the past, we're

not looking to blame the present, we're not looking to blame the future. We're

just, we're just going to be making things.

PAT: Total fresh start for conservatives and progressives.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: That's great. That's a great idea.

 

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.