Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Restoring the Covenant
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2020 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

THIS is Change?

January 21, 2008
 Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

GLENN: I mean, think of the America that we live in today. Are we willing to have a woman as a President of the United States? I think the answer to that is yes. An African-American? The answer is yes. Are we really free at last. In many ways, in many ways I think we are. But the other thing, the other buzzword that's happening today is change. Everybody wants change. Vote for change. Every single slogan for every single person is about change, or even in the case of Ron Paul it goes beyond change. It's revolution. What is the definition of change? Definition of change, I looked it up. To cause to be different. To give completely different form or appearance to or to transform. To exchange or replace with another. To lay aside, abandon or leave, to transfer from one to another, excuse me, to become different, to undergo altercation -- or alteration. Undergo transformation or transition. To go from one phase to another, as the moon goes from one phase to another or seasons change. My question is, which one of these defines the change? Is it just to go from one to another? Is that the kind of change we're talking about if really Clinton and McCain are the two candidates? If those are the two candidates, if we have as a nation gone from all of the candidates, that we had all of the choices that we have had in these primaries and we end up with McCain and Clinton, are those the agents of change? I mean, I find it absolutely amazing, incredible to me that Clinton is an agent of change. Has anybody noticed the pattern? Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? I mean, I don't want another Bush. I don't want another Clinton. And the reason why is because, not that I hate the families or anything else. I mean, I like the Bush family. Not really my favorite politicians, but I like them. I just don't want another one. I like change. And I happen to know specifically what kind of change I want, but I'm beginning to believe the United States of America, the average person, doesn't know what kind of change they want. They don't even know what they're voting for. Tell me what kind of change Hillary Clinton brings. Tell me what kind of change John McCain brings. Tell me what conservative, tell me what Republican is saying John McCain's the guy? Now, maybe you're one of these new Republicans, the anti-Reagan Republican, the one that doesn't understand how taxes work. I don't get the change thing here.

Another thing that really just drives me crazy, and I'm looking into, we're asking all of the candidates -- I doubt they'll tell us, but we're going to ask every single one of them. Why is it you hate Mitt Romney? Because that's the big thing. All the candidates hate Mitt Romney. They've all ganged up on Mitt Romney. "You know the GOP, they hate Mitt Romney." Well, I want to find out if that's even true, and if it is, that's reason number 1400 for me to vote for Mitt Romney. Oh, the GOP doesn't even like him? Good. I don't even know if it's true. I know it is with the press. I don't understand how you can have more candidates in Nevada and yet the South Carolina primary is more important. It's not more important -- when it comes to the Democrats, Nevada is where they focus. So Nevada is important with the Democrats but completely irrelevant when it comes to a win for Mitt Romney.

Now there's a new poll out in Florida and it goes to prove what I had as a working theory that once people start to see it come down to McCain, I thought they were going to go for Giuliani. I thought when it got right down to it, they would go for Giuliani.

New Rasmussen poll that just came out in Florida, everybody was bunched down to about 18%. The new poll shows that Romney's at 25%; everybody else is staying down about 18%. So now Romney is leading in Florida and I think that's because people are coming to their senses on McCain. I thought the opposite would happen in Florida because Giuliani had been there for so long, I thought the Giuliani strategy might actually work because you would get down to this point and you would see McCain and you would be like, come on, man, not McCain, no way McCain. You're kidding me, right? McCain, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Lieberman?

You want change? Here's the change you're going to get. You put Clinton or McCain in there -- you know what, first of all, McCain/Clinton is not a choice. It's a ticket. It's the McClinton ticket. It's the same thing. You're going to get -- well, with Hillary you'll get more spending. That's the only difference. John McCain will try to stop spending. But both of them look at taxes exactly the same way. You are going to get a gigantic tax bill at the end, you are going to give away our country to national -- to internationalism. I mean, McCain/Lieberman. Sign all kinds of global treaties on global warming. Oh, we're going to take a break, then I'm going to come back. I've got to give you this great story out of Greenland. Is it Greenland or is it Iceland? Which one -- I think it's Greenland because that one has the ice. It's a great story, unbelievably cold temperatures. Everything is freezing. Everything's out of control. And you won't believe what the mayor of one of these towns up in Greenland has said. He's a big global warming guy. Disregard all of the ice. Wait until I give you the quote. If it doesn't say it all about global warming, I don't know what does, but let's rush to that change, shall we?

Critical race theory: The revolution of constant whining

Flickr/GaryStevens

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.

Will we EVER see justice in the FBI, Trump, Russia investigation?

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.

Glenn Beck: Rand Paul was RIGHT to say Dr. Fauci LIED about gain-of-function

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.