The Best of Glenn Beck! - 7/4/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Love.

Courage.

Political activism has infected one of the most important institutions in America.

Yes, McDonald's.

McDonald's, in California, has flipped its golden arches upside down to resemble W.

Get it?

M, which is bad because men,

it starts with an M like McDonald's.

He turned upside down and now it's woman.

Wow.

Another W word.

McDonald's is,

you know, is

following suit with all the digital platforms.

You know, maybe I'm crazy, but I think this is just,

you know, a cheap publicity.

So I don't think there's not a single woman that I know or respect that would be driving by and going, you know what?

Suddenly, I am going to have that quarter pounder with cheese.

They respect me.

I mean, they employ women at all levels.

Many of the customers are women.

Many of the customers are not women.

You know, they make sure that they have boy and girl-centric happy meal toy options.

I mean, do we need to really celebrate women even more?

How about we get a transgendered Ronald McDonald and Grimace has always been I don't know if that's a man or a woman he is he's cis neutral

anyone with a brain cell knows this is a pandering marketing campaign and it's working everyone is covering it but will it do anything I mean does anybody think you know what

I'm gonna

I'm gonna fight for that that gender inequality in our society because McDonald's has turned their sign upside down.

I'm guessing it's not going to sell an extra hamburger.

I'm just guessing no.

I would argue that McDonald's already does a great job at eradicating inequality between the sexes.

We're all equal when we pull up to that drive-through and that window late at night and embarrassingly bark out an order and ask for two Big Macs and large fries, something that all of our mothers would have said: do not eat that crap.

We do it, male or female, and we all feel the same shame.

Do the ends justify the means?

Are there real white hats and black hats anymore?

Can you actually be a white hat

taking down a black hat

if you've done them in nefarious ways.

Are you wearing a gray hat or are you wearing a black hat?

There are so many things today that we'd all like to see, you know, dishonest, bad media go away and collapse on its own weight.

We might even cheer when something like Gawker, which was a despicable website,

when Gawker went out of business and had had to shut down, we might all cheer.

However, are we comfortable with the idea that a billionaire can conspire

and make that happen?

Even though the end is good.

Ryan Holliday is an author.

He wrote a great book called Trust Me, I'm Lying, which is a fantastic read to go back to see how the news you see every day gets to you.

It's a

sausage.

It's incredible.

You'll find teeth and shoes in it.

You have to read that.

The new book is Conspiracy, Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.

And it brings us through this entire story.

And Ryan joins us now.

So, Ryan, can you tell this story like only you can?

Tell this story before we get into what we are supposed to learn from it.

Well, it's an almost unbelievable story.

In 2007, Gawker Media, a gossip website in New York City,

has a Silicon Valley arm called ValleyWag, and they out the Silicon Valley investor, Peter Thiel, as gay.

He's at that point the founder of PayPal.

He was an early investor in Facebook, but a relatively unknown person whose sexuality was known to his friends, but he was not publicly gay.

He's humiliated by this.

He's frustrated by it.

He's hurt.

Gawker's headline, I believe, was, Peter Thial is totally gay, people.

So imagine your most sensitive you know, secret being made public in such a flippant way.

And he finds this not to be illegal, but to be disgusting.

Hang on just a second.

Ryan, when this happens with Gawker, is this,

because I find Gawker despicable.

They've done things to me and my family that are just despicable.

But on this, people were saying, well,

we should out people because that's only going to make

people more comfortable with

gay people if they know you're around them all the time.

So were they using the ends justify the means at that time to do something good, or are they just dirtbags?

I think it's a little bit of both, right?

I think they thought,

why should he get to keep this secret?

And I think they also thought,

why should it be a secret?

This isn't something to be ashamed of.

But the truth is, he didn't want it to be public, and I believe that's his prerogative.

Yeah, it's his story to tell, not anybody else's.

And so he sort of despairs of being able to do anything about it for five years.

He just sort of sits on this.

He's frustrated, he's hurt by it, but he can't do anything about it.

And

it's only

in 2012, when Gawker

makes another enemy, they run a illegally recorded sex tape of the professional wrestler, Hulk Hogan,

that Teal sees the opportunity that he's been looking for this whole time, that he'd been looking for.

He'd hired a lawyer to spot opportunities like this.

He approaches Hulk Hogan and he says, look, what they did to you is not only despicable, I think it's illegal both federally and in Florida where you're a resident.

I will fund this.

Teal approaches him through an intermediary.

This is totally in secret.

I will fund this case as far as you're willing to take it.

And he approaches a number of other people who have similar cases.

And then

for the next four years, this case winds its way through the legal system, and he eventually wins $140 million bankruptcy-inducing verdict against Gawker in Florida to the shock of all onlookers and legal strategists at the time.

And he achieves that thing that he had set out to do in 2007, which was to both get his revenge and to prevent

this website that he believes to be evil from doing what it did to people.

So

I know Peter.

He is a very, you know, generally quiet guy.

You know,

he's an odd duck.

He's a really nice guy.

Doesn't seem like a guy who's driven by vengeance, but does sound like a guy or feels like a guy who will take all the time necessary in the world.

He is not in any hurry.

He'll wait until it's right.

Well, that's what's so brilliant about what he did.

I think most of us, when something is done to us, we react, we respond, right?

A fight breaks out.

A conspiracy, to me, is more something that brews, that develops.

And that's what was so brilliant about Peter.

He didn't, he said, look, what they did to me, I don't think was right.

And I'm angry about it.

But it's never good to be driven by anger.

And so instead, he stepped back.

He never forgot what happened, but he looked for an opportunity where he actually had

legal ground to stand on, where he actually could have an impact, where the public would be so universally repulsed by what these people did that he would have a shot at making a difference.

And so, I think both that patience and that ability to be strategic is why he was able to solve a problem, if that's what you want to call it, that many other powerful people had looked at and said, basically, there's nothing you can do about this.

But he didn't do, did he become the thing that he despised I don't get the impression that he did he he

he did this on the up and up the only thing the reason why it's conspiracy is he didn't want to be out front but now that it's known he doesn't mind I mean he's owning it now sure I look I think secrecy is a fundamental element of a conspiracy and and I and I respect that he was willing to see that the optics of a billionaire being publicly in front of this thing completely changes how the public would look at it.

But he said to me, he got this advice from one of his friends.

His friend said, Peter, you have to choose your enemies carefully because you become just like them.

And so that's really the danger of spending nine years scheming to destroy or ruin someone or something is that you study them so much, they consume so much of your mental bandwidth that you can kind of become like them.

I don't think that he became anything like Gawker, but

for instance, there's a seminal moment in jury selection where they notice that overweight female jurors are the most sympathetic to their case.

And now, that's not

disgusting, but there is an element of unpleasantness in selecting a juror to then exploit their most vulnerable body issue.

But

don't you think that

that's done in the the court system every day of the week?

Well, agreed, but my point is, I think

we tend to be

idealists about change.

We think that

we can make change without getting our hands dirty or without dealing with some of this unpleasantness.

And so there's compromises in pursuing something of this magnitude.

And I think Peter was so committed to what he was doing that he felt that

that means did justify the end.

So Ryan has spent a lot of time with Peter Thiel.

Peter Thiel, this is not an anti-Peter Thiel book.

This is Peter works side by side.

He had unprecedented access to Peter.

And while Peter didn't,

I don't think, Ryan, unless there's another conspiracy, he didn't fund this book.

He just gave access more with Ryan Holliday.

The book is conspiracy, and there are some tough questions that we have to ask ourselves.

More in a minute.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Addicted to Outrage.

A new book from best-selling author Glenn Beck.

Because everybody needs to be outraged about something that is entirely meaningless.

Something that really makes no difference or is none of my business whatsoever.

But I need to be really outraged.

Addicted to outrage.

To stir us up and get us toward anger.

And we are addicted.

Addicted to outrage.

Pre-order your copy now at Amazon.com or download a preview on iTunes.

We're with Ryan Holliday.

He is the author of a book called Conspiracy: Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.

It's a really, it's a very tough question that we have to tackle, but I want to get a couple of more facts out of the way here before we do with Ryan.

Ryan, a couple of things that have been picked up from the book.

One thing that Peter had conversations

about his strategy trying to get Gawker to go away.

And they discussed, at least seemingly, it comes off a little flippantly, but at least considered doing things that were actually illegal when it comes to the

examples to

well,

I'm sure Ryan can walk us through the examples.

I don't have them in front of me.

Sure.

Go ahead, Ryan.

It struck me as a little bit of a tempest in a teepod of the media coverage because it's like getting in trouble for thinking about speeding and then not speeding.

But if you think about Teal's position,

he finds Gawker to be this great evil.

He's trying to do something about it.

But as a billionaire, he has essentially limitless resources.

He's also the majority owner of one of the most powerful intelligence and defense companies on the planet.

So he has these immense resources.

And so it's a question then of which of them is he going to use and what limitations is he going to impose on himself.

So theoretically, could he hire private detectives to follow Gawker writers and attempt to find dirt on them that would be embarrassing?

Could he start a rival website that would focus nothing but nothing on their personal lives?

Could he bribe employees to leak information to him?

Could he lobby politicians to go after them?

There's many things that he could do, but what he decides actually early on, after sort of laying all these options out on the table is that he wants only to do what's legal and ethical because he's both, I think, an ethical and moral person, but also because at some point your involvement is made public.

At some point, you win, and then the public looks at what you did and they judge you for this, right?

And so, his belief was that

if they accomplished this thing they were trying to accomplish with unethical or illegal means,

the victory wouldn't stand, and it would also be, as we were talking about earlier, it would be pyrrhic in the sense that it would come at a great cost to himself because he would have had to become the thing that he was trying to change in the first place.

I have to tell you,

this is kind of being spun as an anti-Peter Thiel book, and just that alone speaks volumes.

I mean,

I don't know how many billionaires there are that would have the self-control that he had to say, no, I want to do it.

I want to do it the right way.

Can you tell me anything?

Because you have an exclusive in this about a guy named Mr.

A.

I know you're not going to tell me who, but what is Mr.

A's role?

Well, that's one of the weirdest twists of this story, this incredibly well-covered story, I think people thought, I guess myself included, thought like Peter Thiel was involved on a day-to-day basis.

And in fact, he sort of follows the startup model, which is in 2011 he has

dinner with this promising young college graduate who who has told Peter he has an idea, and they sit down to dinner.

And this kid says, Peter, I think I can solve your Gawker problem.

I think that buried in their archive of posts are illegal acts or acts that make them vulnerable to civil judgments.

And I think he says, if you give me $10 million

in three to five years of time, I think I can make something happen here.

And basically on the spot, Peter invests in this kid.

And this kid is Peter's go-between, his operative,

who hires the attorneys, who vets the cases, who makes the decisions day to day.

And Peter is

in the way that Peter puts $500,000 in Mark Zuckerberg's hands and he goes and makes Facebook, Mr.

A goes and makes this conspiracy a reality.

So what do you think Mr.

A is going to be doing now?

Well, I would imagine when you solve a problem for a billionaire like this, the world is sort of your oyster from that point forward.

I think he's got basically limitless options now and has one patron who's probably willing to back him on any project under any condition.

Holy cow.

What was Peter's motivation?

in

cooperating with you, Ryan, on this book?

Well, as I'm sure you guys have seen, just seeing the coverage and now talking to me, this is a story that has been intensely covered, but with such bias and such sort of tribal instincts on behalf of the media, because the media sees what

happens to Gawker, and they think, oh, that could happen to us.

Let's circle the wagons.

So there's been this incredible amount of judgment about what's happened.

And I think that's greatly impacted the coverage, right?

To such a degree that Peter has become, in many people's eyes, this sort of James Bond villain.

And that's really not what he is when you

meet him and you see what he did and why he did it.

And so I think I'd written critically about Gawker many times myself.

My emails were once hacked and leaked to Gawker.

And so I know what that feeling is like.

So I was willing to at least be fair.

I told Peter, look, you're not going to get to see the book before it's printed.

You're not going to have any input on it.

I'm going to play it down the middle.

But I think he at least believed that I would would play it down the middle rather than holding him up as the villain if that wasn't true.

So, Ryan,

if I'm just trying to think this through, if a billionaire, let's say George Soros, who is not a friend of mine,

if he decided to

go after me and I was doing something, the Blaze was doing things that

were blatantly illegal.

And I don't mean

death by a million paper cuts, what a billionaire could do.

have, I don't think I would have sympathy for Peter if he had just been paper cut after paper cut, technicality after technicality, just keep him in court and bleed him dry.

I don't think this is a problem for the First Amendment if

they're going after things that are really, truly illegal and they're big.

And I'd like to get your response on that when we come back.

What does this mean for the First Amendment that a billionaire can mark somebody and then take them out?

Is that good for the Republic when we come back?

I am

I'm currently on a

couple week rant of we've got to do something and how that always leads to bad things.

You just don't make good decisions when you're angry, upset, emotionally.

We've got to do something.

It usually also also means I'll violate my principles because I want this pain to stop.

So what are our principles?

I didn't like Gawker.

Gawker did some things that were dangerous for my family.

I thought they were despicable people,

and I did wish them to go out of business,

but

I wouldn't have done anything to get them to go out of business.

And I like the way Peter Thiel

did this.

He waited to see, is there something that they have done that breaks the law?

When they had Hulk Hogan,

that was an illegally recorded tape.

And for what?

What was the purpose of exposing that?

So Peter took them to court on that.

The problem is, is he's a billionaire, has unlimited sources.

And are we setting a precedent that that somebody who has an axe to grind can put another company out of business.

One man can put a media company out of business if they want to.

Did anybody learn that lesson in a negative way?

Ryan is with us.

Ryan Holiday is the author of the book Conspiracy, Peter Thiel, Hulk, Hulgan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue.

What have you come to, Ryan, on that?

Well, it that is the big question.

And it it is potentially scary to think that a billionaire could shut a media outlet down.

And then when you step back, you know, your point about not not reacting emotionally, well, did Peter actually do anything new that doesn't happen every day anyway, right?

The ACLU, the Sierra Club, the NRA, they back cases all the time that they think move their ideology forward or stands up for one of their constituents.

And so the idea of a wealthy person backing a lawsuit, not out of financial gain, but out of ideological alignment, is actually, you know, not remotely new.

And if you were to ban it, society would undoubtedly become a worse place, right?

Why shouldn't your rich uncle be able to support you against a person who

ran into you with their truck, right?

So there is a

so there's the legal question, which I think he did everything right.

And then there's the ethical question, which I think he did everything right.

But you have to ask that ethical question too.

And would you have felt different if he would have taken Gawker on with almost frivolous lawsuits and just done death by a thousand paper cuts?

Do you think it would have been a different story for you?

Absolutely, because there you're not actually attempting to win.

You're not attempting to have your argument validated.

You're attempting to

destroy someone for something that they may have not actually done wrong.

And so Peter's decision, for instance, not even to attack on First Amendment grounds, because he believes that that is sacred,

but to look instead at the individual's right to privacy, right?

Is there a newsworthiness in this sex tape or is there a copyright claim here?

He specifically did not sue them on, say, frivolous libel or defamation grounds because he was worried about the precedent that it might set.

And he didn't believe there was anything wrong there.

So his distinction is really, really important.

And I think

a potential hypothetical would be, what if a liberal had backed Shirley Sherrod in her lawsuit against Breitbart when they ran that deliberately edited, manipulative tape of hers

in, I believe it was 2011.

And I don't think many of the people who are deeply upset about what happened to Gawker, I don't think they would be upset if Breitbart had gone out of business in 2012.

I think they'd be cheering it the exact same way.

So

go ahead, follow up.

Very interesting.

Yes, that's absolutely true.

I wanted to get your take quickly on,

I can't remember the guy's name who actually wrote the story,

but he's become somewhat of a cause celeb on the left of a guy because he's not the guy, he's not Nick Denton who ran Gawker, but the guy who actually just did the post.

He's a lowly complete.

Yes, yes.

He's just

a writer and he's working for Gawker, not making a ton of money.

And he was involved in this lawsuit and and he has been presented as this guy who got in the middle of this thing, and he was helpless in this situation, and now he has no chance of making any money.

He owes like, you know, an ungodly amount of money for this lawsuit and can't do anything about it.

He wasn't wealthy.

He didn't own Gawker.

Can you give any perspective on that and how you see how that went down?

Yeah, so in a way, he's just doing his job.

Like, Gawker publishes these stories all the time.

It's so unremarkable when he gets the whole Kogan tape that Nick Denton, the CEO, isn't even notified, right?

The case that bankrupts the company, the CEO doesn't know about it until after it's published, because that's how run of the bill it actually was.

And so, yes,

it was unfortunate that this individual, this writer doing this job, takes the full brunt of it in the public eye

during the trial and then is held liable.

The jury

says holds him personally liable for about $100,000 of this $140 million judgment.

but what people forget is that months after the verdict peter and and and hulk hogan settle with gawker that releases uh both denton and and delario from these individual claims and they're able to to walk free they you know they didn't they they were not necessarily ruined by it and peter said like look my goal was to destroy gawker not to ruin these people personally

but individuals are held accountable for their actions, and that's life.

I mean, we all have choices.

No matter if everybody else is doing it, we still have a choice.

You know,

I'm so intrigued by Peter.

I think he is a, I think he's a real force for good, and I think he is a, I think he's a deep and thoughtful man.

That doesn't make everything that he, everything that he does right or good, but he, he really seems to

think about things.

And he, um, I heard him say once, I it's not that I think I'm right.

I'm not even sure if I'm right.

I just don't think other people are even thinking about these things.

Yes.

What does that tell you about him?

He would say that even about this case, that it's often not that

he was right and other people were wrong.

It's that Gawker wasn't even, Gawker just assumed that this whole Kogan case would get settled.

They weren't even taking it seriously.

And so Peter is a person who has theories about the world, and he's willing to, as Nassim Taleb would say, put some skin in the game, right?

He's willing to throw some weight behind them and see what happens.

And I think to me, the lesson of what happened and what I tried to write about in the book is that you can fundamentally disagree with what Peter did.

And you can think that it's dangerous and alarming that Gawker doesn't exist anymore.

But there is something to study, a lesson to learn.

about how this guy did it and why he did it and how he was able to effectuate the change that he believed needed to happen outside of writing op-eds or putting out a petition.

He made real change in the real world where other people said there was nothing you could do about it.

And to me, that's a lesson that,

in some ways, that's an inspiring thing right now in this society where we're stuck, you know,

on both sides of the aisle.

I think we just feel like change can't happen.

And here, a guy made something happen.

Yeah, when I saw that in the book,

that phrase,

I thought to myself, that is something that

the world is not even rewarding now.

It doesn't reward you to think.

It doesn't reward you to think out of the box and to think differently.

And it doesn't reward you to say, I'm not sure if I'm right.

I just want us to think about that.

And that's really what we're missing.

And the irony is that in some ways, Gawker was part of that problem, right?

I think one of Teal's objections to them is not just the despicable things that they did and the violations of privacy, but as the site that just sort of made fun of everyone for every mistake, every failure, every personal idiosyncrasy, they were disincentivizing people from thinking outside the box, from being weird.

And weirdness is where innovation comes from and creativity.

And we should want people to take risks and turn out to be wrong.

What we don't want to do is mercilessly mock them to the point where nobody tries anything because they don't want to end up on the front page of Gawker.com or any website.

Ryan Holiday, thank you very much.

Thanks for having me.

I think we sold you on that story.

That's a pretty good story.

Ryan tells it well, and there's a lot in here that has not previously been reported on it.

Conspiracy, Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Anatomy of Intrigue by Ryan Holliday.

I'd also, we should have Ryan back on at some point.

Trust me.

For Trust Me, I'm Lying.

Yeah.

It is.

He is a guy who has a firsthand

first-hand experience, really,

with

fake news.

Yeah.

I mean, it was really kind of his job as a PR person,

and he knows how it works, and it's really fascinating.

So we'll have to.

Quickly on it, the concept of that book was that he would, you know, those weird stories that bubble up to the national media, and you're like, how do we even hear about that?

It was his job to try to get them elevated from a blog to local media to regional media to national media to try to get attention for clients and all sorts of stuff.

So he was like in the media manipulation business for a long time.

And you know what?

It goes to, remember the first thing that I said when we went to CNN and I said, I'm really uncomfortable with this, the ingesting of news.

Oh, yeah.

Because if you make one mistake,

that is your basis forever.

And it's interesting because what he did was it was on a blog, and then he would call the local news and say, Did you see this?

Did you see this blog?

And they would use that as a credible source.

And then he'd go to the regional news and say, Did you see this in the newspaper?

And it got more credible as it went on.

Now, more of the best of the Glenn Beck program.

I

resemble that remark.

News from

Dunder

Fermaline.

Dunder Fermaline Sheriff Court.

Dunder.

A man ended up behind bars after being found in

Dunder Mifflin Street with an offensive weapon.

Sky Walker is 39 years old at the James Bank Hostel.

James Street, he appeared from

custody at at Dunder

Malifflin Sheriff's Court.

He did admit on Saturday in Appling Crescent, a public place, that he was in possession of an

object which had a blade or was sharply pointed.

You have to remember, we're now starting to confiscate all weapons

like

knives

and

knives,

and he had a blade that was sharply pointed,

namely a potato

potato potato peeler.

Defense solicitor Selena McHay said her client suffers from significant learning difficulties, which have been lifelong.

And he had absolutely no idea that a potato a potato peeler was a dangerous weapon.

But in all fairness, neither did this reporter.

This has been another highly intoxicating episode of drunk news.

A potato peeler.

Guy goes to jail for a potato peeler.

Does make more sense when you say it?

Yeah, but that's a very dangerous weapon.

Have you ever...

Oh, it's dangerous to the potatoes.

Potatoes are the most untrustworthy

of all of the vegetables and root vegetables.

The only ones with eyes.

They have eyes everywhere on all sides.

They're watching you all the time.

You have to sneak up.

And you have your potato peeler.

Your potato peeler, you can use a knife, but potatoes know what knives are.

And so the potato peeler, they're like, oh, that's just not a knife.

It's actually a very dangerous weapon.

It could take your eyes out.

Joke about this all you want, but imagine if you're the, you know, you're Mr.

and Mrs.

Potato Head and you're seeing a potato peeler.

Imagine the horror film that that is for the potato.

Mr.

Potato Head was not asked for comment at this time.

He is at home resting comfortably

with his wife.

This is what we're getting down to, gang.

So they're legitimately arresting people for potato peelers who had a potato peeler, putting them them in jail.

And the defense was, oh, he's a complete imbecile.

That sucks.

It sucks when that's your defense.

I mean, that's crazy.

We hear that a lot in politics, though.

It's kind of the standard line of defense for every politician these days.

Ah, I'm just an idiot.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Listen,

Mike Hyan.

Is this a moron?

I would accept that.

Wouldn't you love to hear that from somebody who's like,

Judge Roy Moore?

Of course.

He's a moron.

It would be interesting to see that as an approach.

It would be effective, I think.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

she didn't make a lot of mistakes.

She's just a moron.

She was...

Your Honor, when she was taking all of those things,

she doesn't break.

She's just

a moron.

It works.

I don't think there's enough.

The ego cannot be violated in that way for most politicians, though.

They can't take that.

Only a moron would say that because this works.

Put down that potato bill.

Glenn, back.

Glenn, back.

As you know, one of my heroes is George Washington, And I have to say that

this is probably the greatest day

since he passed away.

I mean, he's looking down on us today and going, thank you.

Thank you for somebody.

Somebody finally did it.

George Washington University, in our nation's capital, has been molding minds now for almost two centuries.

And

it's, of course, one of the most prestigious and highest-ranked institutions in America.

And every student, though, that has graced the hallowed halls of GW

have come away with a great education, or so we thought, so we thought, until now,

they had a deficiency in their expensive education.

And finally, one brave professor at GW is stepping up to do something about this deficiency.

He's tackling one of the most troubling problems of our time, and one that really none of us have the courage to talk about.

He is leading a life-changing seminar on, quote, Christian privilege in America.

There, I said it.

Okay?

Finally, it's out.

Christian privilege.

It's been the non-GOP elephant in the room since America's founding, really, that Christians get all the privileges.

Well, that and white people.

Oh, and men.

White men, Christians?

Oh, my gosh, they're the worst.

The founders set it up that way, you know, in the Constitution.

It's in the Bill of Rights.

Look it up.

White privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege.

You know, white privilege.

It's still five minutes ago.

Christian privilege is really what's keeping everybody down.

Actually, white privilege is still a thing, but that's also

mentioned under the seminar's learning objectives.

But I guess white privilege kind of goes hand in hand with Christian privilege, doesn't it?

I'm not sure anymore.

Tomato, tomato.

Who knows?

The professor is Timothy Kane, and he plans to explore how Christians in the U.S.

experience life in an easier way than non-Christians.

Yeah,

probably

because we're about 70%.

We claim to be about 70 or so percent Christian.

I don't know if anybody's actually living it anymore, but yeah.

I'm sure it'll include a full analysis of the way, you know, Christians, for instance, in

Sutherland Springs, Texas, have experienced life in an easier way since last November.

In his seminar description, Professor Kane asks, even with the separation of church and state, are there places where Christians have a built-in advantage over non-Christians?

Of course.

Of course, absolutely.

Like magical places like California.

Because I'm sure he's going to discuss the special Christian privilege of the California cafe owners who get to play their Christian music whenever they want in their privately owned business.

Oh, no, wait, hold on.

Sorry, it's backward.

They don't actually get to enjoy that special privilege.

They were actually singled out because they were Christian.

And they're about to be evicted from the building where they run their business and have run it for 11 years because one person complained.

If Professor Kane honestly thinks Christian privilege exists in America, much less the world, I don't think he gets outside of his bubble very often.

A more enlightening seminar might

be one on the progressive university privilege to help us understand how professors like Kane continue to get paid for coming up with crap like this.

Our universities are becoming indoctrination camps.

That's all they are.

They're teaching your kids the things that they really need to know.

No, my kid needs to know math and science and literature.

That's what my kid needs to know.

And you're not teaching him any of that.

You're teaching them all this bull crap of privilege.

you know what here it is here's the lesson everybody needs life

is not fair

you may not get everything that you want you may not get anything that you want

but continue to pick yourself up and keep going

The Constitution and

with Lady Justice who is blind

is not supposed to be granting special favors for anyone, no matter their color, their creed, no matter what it is.

You break the law, you go to jail.

You succeed, good for you.

Keep going.

And now that you have more things, more stuff, we'll protect people from stealing that from you.

That's the lesson.

Now, can we get down to math and science, please?

Charles

Murray is an author.

He's a scholar.

He's a brilliant political science mind from MIT, and he has his BA in history from Harvard.

He's written several books.

He's controversial because he looks at the facts and then says them no matter what people want to think.

He wrote The Bell Curve.

He wrote Losing Ground, which

was credited as the reason why we had the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

He's also written What It Means to Be a Libertarian in Our Hands, Real Education, and then

Coming Apart, which I just finished reading, and I know I'm way late on it because it came out in 2012, but it's a fascinating look at America and how we are coming apart.

What has changed?

He also has his recent book out, By the People, Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.

We wanted to get him on because he's a fascinating man.

We'll have you looking at things in a completely different way quickly.

Welcome to the program, Charles Murray.

Thanks, Blen.

Played to be here.

So, Charles,

let's start with this.

Any comments on the Christian privilege thing?

Well,

it's actually laughable.

I understand that it's serious and that I would be very unwilling to pay 60 grand a year to college these days, like I did with my kids in earlier years, because it's gotten so bad.

So I'm not laughing because it's not a problem.

I'm laughing because it's so silly.

Privilege is the one you refer to.

If you want to talk about privilege, it is that if you go to Harvard or Princeton or Yale or a variety of other highly prestigious colleges,

you get interviewed by places that aren't going to interview you for jobs.

I mean, I'm talking about

Goldman Sachs and things like that.

That's privilege when you get access to that kind of job opportunity that can make you fabulously wealthy.

There are a whole variety of things that the new upper class, which is my label for this educated class, have going for them, whereby they have crafted a world that is perfectly suited to what they do best.

That's privilege in a real, concrete, powerful sense that makes any Christian privilege trivial.

So, you know, in reading your book,

it's just fascinating the way you use stats and the way you view things and compare apples to apples.

But, you know, you wrote this in 2012, and

it's all

heavy on the tree now.

This fruit is very ripe.

Can you kind of go down a little bit and explain

what is happening to us right now?

Well, yeah, just this is the Cliff Notes version of the argument.

It's real simple.

That you had two things happen about half a century ago, in the 1950s and thereafter.

And one was

that you had the good schools in this country became much more

willing to take kids from all over the country.

I went to Harvard in the fall of 1961 from Newton, Iowa.

I would have never thought of applying to Harvard 20 years earlier.

That was one thing that happened.

And since, Glenn, that's good.

I mean, you know, kids with talent get a chance to fulfill it.

That's great.

But what that did was over time,

as the decades went on, it created a kind of new culture of all these kids who are really, really smart and

who

become isolated from each from the rest of the country

that they weren't before.

I love in your book the way you describe this that because we all went to school with a geek.

I mean, I

went to school with a guy who was a math genius, first chair violinist.

He had perfect pitch.

I mean, the guy was

good-looking, and I just wanted to stone him to death.

If I would have lived in biblical days, I would have led the charge.

But, you know, I don't know what he's doing now, but he was very isolated in some ways because he was so smart.

And, you know,

I always, you know, when he went off to college, I always wondered what that was like because now he was in a group of a bunch of other really, really smart people.

And the way you describe this and what happens is fascinating.

And it's much, much different than it used to be.

You know, think of it about this way, Glenn.

If you're talking about, let's say, people with high IQs, and let's just say that's people with IQs of 130 above,

which I hasten to add does not make them wise.

It does not make them generous.

It's not associated with any of these other virtues.

It's just they're real smart.

Okay.

In 1900,

only 5% or 10% of that really, really smart subset even went to college.

Most of the people who were super smart were working as factory workers.

About half of them were housewives.

And you had

a huge mix in the country.

And what's happened now is that you have these kids who are super smart who increasingly are going to school with each other and they're getting jobs in the same kinds of cities afterwards.

Let me give you a quick example that'll give you an idea of it.

When I went to Harvard in the fall of 1961,

if you walked outside Harvard Yard, you were in a sort of middle-class Boston neighborhood.

You know, there were hardware stores, there were

little grocery stores, there were, it was,

this was not an elite place outside the precincts of the walls of Harvard.

You go to Cambridge, Massachusetts today,

and it has glossy little restaurants of every conceivable kind, you know, all sorts of boutique shops.

It has not just one, but two whole food stores within walking distance of Harvard Yard.

It is an enclave.

Which is is completely different from the way it used to be.

And once you're in that enclave at the age of 18 as a freshman, you're likely to stay in that enclave for the rest of your life.

And you are also likely to think this is the way real people live, and you begin to look down on real people.

And I want to take that now.

You've just described the elite.

I'm going to take a break and come back.

You describe what's happened to the other half of America.

Charles Murray is the author of the book Coming Apart, The State of White America, 1960 to 2010.

Fascinating book.

We'll get back to him in just a second.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Addicted to Outrage.

A new book from best-selling author Glenn Beck.

Because everybody needs to be outraged about something that is entirely meaningless.

Something that really makes no difference or is none of my business whatsoever.

But I need to be really outraged.

Addicted to outrage.

To stir us up and get us toward anger.

And we are addicted.

Addicted to outrage.

Pre-order your copy now at Amazon.com or download a preview on iTunes.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Charles Murray is the author of the book, Coming Apart, The State of White America, 1960 to 2010.

I started reading it here recently, and I'm just fascinated by it because it's all starting to happen now, and it's all being misdiagnosed.

People are saying that it's racism on the left,

and the right is saying that it's elitism, but there's actual reasons for why this is coming apart, and we're not addressing any of those.

So Charles just explained

why the

elites have started to pull away

from the average American, and it's because

they used to go to college in their own area.

The colleges weren't elite like they are now.

And you would pretty much go home, and you'd pretty much live the same kind of life as everybody else around you, which is not happening anymore.

Yeah, you were mixed up with all sorts of other people, too, because, look, here's an example.

In an elite neighborhood, like the North Shore of Chicago or whatever, which used to be prestigious in 1960, the same way it is now.

But in 1960,

the wealthy executives in the North Shore, Chicago, were mostly married to high school graduates, you know.

And you go to those same kinds of neighborhoods today,

they haven't married the girl next door.

I'm talking about the guys now who are very successful.

They've married the graduate from Yale Law School that their company was litigating against and that fell in love with.

You've got people being reinforced in these bubbles.

Here's an example for you, Glenn.

If you live in

an affluent neighborhood and you send your kids, even to the public schools, if it's in a rich neighborhood,

you're probably not going to have your child meet anyone

whose parents make a living with their hands.

They're not going to meet anyone who isn't real smart.

And as a result, they get to be 25, 30, 35 years old.

and they sort of assume that all these people out in flyover country are really stupid and really can't be trusted to manage their own affairs.

And it's we smart people who have to make the choices for them.

It's a very common attitude.

So tell me what's happening to the to the

other half of America.

Well, things started to fall apart.

And now I'm in the book I talk exclusively about white America.

And the reason I did that, Glenn, Glenn, was originally just because I didn't want people to think these problems are only in the black community or Hispanic community.

As it turned out, there were even bigger problems going on in white America than we realized.

A lot of demoralization.

That demoralization came from all sorts of things.

Part of it was the economy.

Another part of it was the ways in which white working class Americans who were applying for the police academy or for the firefighting academy found that they weren't getting in because affirmative action, even though they'd taken the entrance examinations and done very well, affirmative action was making it harder for them.

There were a variety of other things going on

that undermined the role of the male as

putting food on the table and a roof over the head.

And

the respect he got for that, that was being undermined by feminism in large part, by the sexual revolution, another part, though, because guess what?

A lot of guys in their early 20s who were getting all the sex they wanted to without getting married didn't feel any strong urge to get married.

So

marriage rates fell.

They plummeted in the white working class.

And all of these things just change the nature of life in white working class neighborhoods for the worse.

So now we have a group of people who are,

you know,

if you don't finish high school, you're most likely to marry somebody who didn't finish high school.

If you went to college, you're most likely to marry somebody who went to college.

So

it's a normal, natural thing, I think.

And

I don't necessarily think that's anything nefarious.

It's just the way it has

happened, but it is splitting us apart.

Is there a way to put this back together?

Well,

you know, I don't believe in government programs as a way to do that.

Right.

I don't think it's going to help to try to force people to have more contact with each other.

Because you're right.

People are doing what comes naturally.

Look, when you get married, you want to marry somebody who gets your jokes, you know?

And you want to marry someone who you can talk to and so forth.

Well, that does leave people with common interests and to some degree, common abilities to marry each other.

There's nothing wrong with it.

But here's the bad part, which is that life gets really

thinned out when you are cocooned in this elite bubble.

I live in a town of 152 people,

60 miles out of DCF.

I'm talking to you right now, looking out my back window over the farm lands next door.

And we moved here in 1989

in large part because I didn't want my little children at that point to grow up only knowing the people who lived in northwest Washington.

Okay, so hold on just a second, Charles, as we get to what can we do and not a government program.

And I also want to talk to him a little bit about our own responsibility when it comes to social media.

What's happening to us there when we come back.

Glenn, back.

Hey, it's Glenn, and I want to tell you about something that you should either end your day with or start your morning with, and that is the news and why it matters.

If you like this show, you're going to love the news and why it matters.

It's a bunch of us that all get together at the end of the day and just talk about the stories that matter to you and your life.

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Talking to Charles Murray,

author of many, many books we happen to be talking about coming apart, the state of White America, 1960 and 2010.

it's a must-read it's a really great book um but um charles you were talking about you know in 1989 you move your kids to the farm so they you know they wouldn't get caught in this trap i did the same thing we have a farm in a town of like 500 people and while i can't live there because i i work in in the city you know we we spend all of our time off there and you know the kids

You know, when they're here,

they're not putting their arm in the back of a cow, you know what I mean?

To to check if she's pregnant.

But out there, she is.

And my kids and I have really learned an important lesson that

the people in many ways live a better life.

In some ways, you know, the back of a cow, not so much, but it's just different.

It's just different.

Now, the way I've often put it is that life just has a lot more texture when you're engaged with people who

are not all lawyers.

They're not all rich.

You have neighbors who still help each other, who work with each other.

You have things going on that are real life in small communities when you get out of these enclaves.

And you ask for the answer.

The solution is for people who are currently living in these elite bubbles to realize life is more fun if you get out of them.

You talk also about the middle of America, that the other half that didn't go to an elite college, they're tending to lose some of the moral principles.

Yeah, and

the collapse of marriage is the biggest problem here.

Because what makes communities work, whether they're urban communities or small towns, is the married couple that are trying to create an environment for their kids that is good.

And that's why you have the little league teams that the fathers are coaching.

That's why you have people attending the PTAs.

That's why you have all sorts of these interactions.

And once marriage goes downhill,

single guys don't very often coach little league teams.

You know, single dads don't.

And

this problem, I have no idea how you fix, except, I guess, Glenn, Just as I want to say to the people in the bubbles that life is more fun outside the bubble, I want to say to to people who are not getting married that a good marriage is the best thing that will ever happen to you.

And it's worth just going way out of your way to try to find that.

My daughter was going to Fordham and she met her now husband.

And she was a junior, I think, maybe a sophomore.

And she said to me, you know, she was talking to me about him, and I really liked him.

And I said, so is he the one?

She said, yeah, he's the one.

I said, so when are you guys getting married?

And she said, well, not until after we get out of marriage, not until we get out of college and then we'll, you know, settle down.

And I said, what?

And she said, dad, you know, it's just, people don't do that anymore.

You know, the world just frowns on you.

And I said, wow, I didn't think that my child would care about appearances.

I said, you, when you find the right person.

Spend every second with them in marriage.

It changes everything.

And they are happily married now.

And she got, she got married almost right away.

But her, her her her professors looked at her when she said I I'm not going to be here I'm going to you know I'm getting married they all looked at her like what is wrong with you

yeah

and and an awful lot of that is exaggerated too once you get into the elite school so even to get married in your 20s is considered too young

And you don't get married until you're 32, 33.

You're already making a quarter million dollars a year.

And, you know,

that kind of approach to life,

I think, is missing the point in lots of important ways.

One of the really interesting points you make, we're talking to Charles Murray, by the way,

author of the book, Coming Apart.

One of the really interesting points you make in the book is how sort of the great society welfare programs of the 60s led to sort of a

degradation of the four pillars of American exceptionalism.

You just talked about marriage, the others being religiosity, industriousness, and honesty.

Can you talk about the relationship between those programs and the changes in our attitude of those main points of American exceptionalism?

Yeah,

they're pretty simple.

In all sorts of ways during the 1960s, when you greatly expanded the scope of things that government did for single women, for example, it made it economically a lot more feasible to have a baby without a husband than it used to be.

I'm not saying it was easy.

I'm not saying that they were getting rich from having babies on welfare.

No, but it became possible in a way that had not been possible.

Well, guess what?

When it becomes easier economically, then more women start to have babies in those circumstances, and then the stigma starts to erode.

Because when you got one girl in the high school class who's pregnant,

that's kind of a tough position to be in.

When you got six, seven, eight, or nine, when you start to have a

center for the babies, you got a problem in terms of the stigma.

So the stigma goes away.

That was the one thing.

The whole problem with crime,

the 1960s is when crime started to shoot up and continued to shoot up for the next three decades because of changes in the criminal justice system whereby the old rather simple formula, you commit a serious crime, you're going to go to jail, that broke down.

People now talk about the incarceration, mass incarceration.

Well,

learn your history.

The crime surge started when we stopped incarcerating people who committed serious crimes, and we've been trying to catch up with it ever since.

We got a lot to answer for, Glenn.

I think you're a baby boomer like me, and

we did all we were

We were advocating all sorts of policies in the 1960s and 70s, which were just a disaster for the culture.

Yeah, that would be my sister that did that, not me.

Not me.

I'm born in 1964, so I'm at the very last year of that.

And, you know, I'm kind of sitting here watching it and seeing that

it doesn't work, and nor do the policies that we're talking about today.

I mean, today we're talking about the shooter in California, the killer that went out and tried to kill people at YouTube.

She's crazy.

She's out of her mind crazy.

But nobody's talking about

what is the underlying problem.

We had a lot of guns forever in America.

You could go in and as a

10-year-old kid and go into a store and buy a gun and bullets in the 1960s.

It wasn't a problem.

There's a hole in our society right now that none of us seem to want to address.

And it's a cultural hole.

It is.

And the problem is that it seems to be getting worse.

Here's a problem we haven't talked about.

In 1960, if you were a guy of working age and you were reasonably healthy, you were in the labor force.

I mean, if you weren't in the labor force, everybody got in your back, whether it was your girlfriend or your parents

or

the other guys would get in your back if you weren't either working or looking hard for work.

Now, we've got,

even in a time of full employment, you've got something in the order of 15%

of working-class guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s, who aren't even looking for work.

That is a new phenomenon whereby you have a breakdown in the social fabric that makes it, that's another thing that contributes to the deterioration of life in working-class America.

How did that come about?

Once again, it became possible to exist at the margins of society in ways that it was much harder to exist in previous years, and a lot of that was cultural.

You were a bum if you behaved that way, and you're no longer a bum.

Talking to Charles

Murray, I want to continue our conversation here just a bit with you,

Charles,

and delve a little bit deeper into

what can be done and the role of social media.

Is that also teaching us things?

Nobody wants to take personal responsibility on anything.

Everybody wants to say, oh, well, maybe we should change Facebook into a utility or whatever.

Well, no, we are Facebook.

We are Twitter.

We are our own worst enemy.

And I'd like to hear your thoughts on that when we come back.

Charles Murray, the book

is

coming apart.

Came out a few years ago, but it's really well worth a read now because it's,

you know, we're being pushed into racism and pushed into this is what the problem is.

No, no, there's some actual stats here that show what the problem is.

Let's deal with the stats and the facts.

Charles Murray is the author of Coming Apart, The State of White America.

And

Charles, I want to ask you a question.

This is my perception, okay, of

how things are.

That there is...

There's always been a group of racists, and they're on both sides, all sides.

It's a human problem.

However, and we were getting better as a society on the whole.

However, we are being pushed and painted as racist and

Islamophobes and everything else.

And this is allowing these crazy nut jobs to be able to come out from

under the wraps out of the holes that they have always been in and start to make points and say, see, they are coming after you.

They are.

See, this is a problem.

And so we're not more racist.

It's just that we're kind of being pushed into corners.

Is that accurate?

We're reaping what we sowed.

Back in the 1960s, when we adopted

the rule that it is okay to treat people by their race as long as you're doing it for the right reasons, we opened Pandora's box.

You know, with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I wish they had had as the core of that, there shall be no law that gives one race advantage over another legally of any kind and just said that.

You know, here we are on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death, and that really was his point, wasn't it?

His point was, America, live up to the words you wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

And what happened was that we said,

we gave identity politics the green light.

It's great for black people to identify with being black, and great for Latinos to identify as Latinos and so forth.

And as that went on and as the kind of anger that was coming out toward whites increased, all at once you had the seventy odd percent of the people in this country who are white who started to say, or at least some of them did, hey,

what's you know, what's good for them is good for us.

I'm going to start identifying as being white as being my primary way of thinking about myself.

It was the inevitable consequence of saying it's okay to treat people differently by race.

How much of a role is social media playing in the acceleration of our country being torn apart?

It is amplifying all of our natural tendencies to only talk to people who think the same things we do.

So now you can get your news from only sources that agree with you.

You can interact with only people who politically agree with you.

And that is happening big time on both the left and the right, which I think accounts for a lot of this tendency to say: if somebody disagrees with me politically, they are not just disagreeing with me on a political issue.

They are bad.

They are bad people.

And

that's driving me nuts

because it's so widespread now.

In looking at all the stats and studying this for so long and being a watchman on the tower and the gates and blowing the horn and nobody listening,

are you still optimistic?

I'm optimistic for the long-term plan.

I cannot imagine that 200 years from now, with all of the increases in wealth and technology that will have occurred, that we still think that a big government running our lives minutely is a great idea.

I think that a lot of the trends in technology and wealth are going to make it easier for us to live free lives.

But Glenn, you and I are part of, here's where I get pessimistic,

we both,

in one way or another, are Madisonians.

I mean, we are committed to the original American ideals of limited government and freedom.

And I'm afraid over the last few years, we've discovered a whole lot of people who talked to Good Game with regard to that didn't really believe it when push came to shove.

So, you know,

I'm pessimistic in the short term.

I don't know where we resuscitate

a movement that says, for heaven's sakes, let people live their lives as they see fit.

I don't see a constituency for that anymore.

Believe it or not, I think I do.

I think I do know where that movement is beginning, and it's strange and um we'll talk about it in the next

couple of weeks charles i'd love to have you back on again there's so much i want to talk to you about about libertarianism and everything else i can't thank you enough for joining us thank you charles

thank you author of the book coming apart have you read that yet stunts of it i've i've you know the bell curve from back in the day had read uh and he's one of the the smartest minds there is i started reading this because i'm reading something i was reading something else and it references and I'm like, man, he keeps coming back to him and this particular book.

I got to read it.

It is mind-boggling.

And all of a sudden, it's kind of like understanding the progressive movement.

All of a sudden, when you understand what he's saying about how America is coming apart, all of a sudden the fog begins to clear and you're like, oh, wow, this is the underlying problem.

Glenn back.

You want to know how to blow a progressive's mind and argument?

It's actually pretty easy.

It takes takes about 100 years, but it's a little easy.

All you do is you let them all just play out.

You just let all of their solutions play out

because they always break down in the end.

And once you get there, then you're just like, oh, wow, this really doesn't work.

I mean, it'd be better if we just intellectually thought things through.

Case in point, gender.

We might do things because it makes people feel good, but

along the way, we start start denying truths that just start to disrupt absolutely everything.

And in the end, you're just denying science.

Let me give you this case.

Champions of social justice want you to believe that gender is fluid because it makes people feel better.

Once the chains of gender science were lifted, the movement went, well, off

the chain.

By February 2014, there were 58 genders listed.

Four months later, there were 71 genders.

Today, there are over 112 listed genders.

I'd like to make it 114,

but I can't because they won't allow male and female to actually be on the list of genders.

Okay.

Let's talk science for a second.

There are only two genders.

Science teaches that, X and Y, two genders.

Everything else we do, that's fine.

You can make you feel good.

We can call each other whatever you want to call.

But we cannot deny science.

No, no, no.

Fight for the cause.

Okay?

Let's go over across the pond.

Let's go to London here for a second.

Leave it to the Fabian Society to unwittingly make the conservative case for guns without meaning to, because things have broken down in the UK.

They've already banned guns.

So now they're starting a new initiative,

comprehensive knife control.

This is fantastic.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, he's got a problem.

Apparently it comes as a shock to progressives all over the world, but bad guys and criminals occasionally try to hurt people.

And if they can't get a gun, they'll use something else.

I know, it's a shocker.

Comes from years of intense research that that we did.

We spent millions of dollars.

Had to even shut down one of the turtle tunnels, or we thought we were going to have to, but the Fed just printed the money, because you can do that.

Anyway, our cousins across the pond thought that they had it all figured out when they banned guns back in the 90s.

They did it!

As if Neville Chamberlain was speaking from the grave, peace in our time.

But if I may, I'd like to pump the brakes here just a little bit.

Crime in the U.K.

has now spiraled out of control.

No guns in the country.

Yet the murder rate in London has now overtaken that of New York City.

Now, how can that be?

Well, they've got a problem with knife and acid crimes.

Okay.

You want to ban something?

You want to put some controls on things?

I think it's acid because I can't think of a good reason anyone's walking around with acid.

Now, maybe it's just me.

I haven't thought it through, but.

And you know what?

There's also a correlation between acid on the face crimes and

I can't think of it right now, but we probably shouldn't talk about it anyway.

So they're now moving to take away knives.

Apparently, the tools criminals use don't really matter to them as long as it gets the job done.

You can practically hear the phone call from the Fabian Society Library to the London Mayor's office.

Bring, bring, bring.

It's me from Fabian Society.

Start banning things.

Ah, I can ban lawlessness.

No, that won't work.

Ban evil.

No, no, I don't recommend that.

Let's ban cutlery.

Exactly.

So that's what they did.

Operation

Spectre.

That's the real name of the operation.

Stopping random citizens and searching them for any kind of tools of death.

Now, the the primary boogeyman here was knives, and the mere fact that the UK has gone from banning guns to kitchen cutlery is actually enough for us to laugh and prove our point.

But the crackdown on inanimate objects didn't stop there.

They're also confiscating, and this is not a joke, scissors, pliers, screwdrivers, and hammers.

Pretty much anything that could be used as a weapon.

What's next?

You know what?

They strangled that person to death.

I want to band hands.

Congratulations, UK.

You won't stop a single crime with this.

The only thing you're going to do is impede, you know,

citizens from actually getting their work done.

Make everybody a criminal.

You're not going to stop the bloodthirsty civilians that are, you know,

actually doing crime.

You're going to get those killers that are just looking to assemble their IKEA furniture.

Now, eating a steak might be a little difficult as well over in the UK.

Banning the tools of criminals and evil men don't really stop crime, but now in the UK they may stop steak.

So a big shout out and a thank you to the London Mayor for opening Pandora's box and making a case for the Second Amendment.

Because now instead of watching clowns on CNN, I can watch the town halls on the BBC, where they are going to be arguing the evils of their NRA.

You know,

the National Ratchet Association.

David Bonson is

a guy who wrote a book called Crisis of Responsibility.

Our cultural addiction to blame and how you can cure it.

And it is really, really good.

David is a guy who was more of an economist, was going to write a book on the meltdown of 2008, what was really to blame, if you will, on that, what we haven't done, because we haven't really done anything to fix it.

We've only made it worse.

But as he started to get into it, he realized that we have a crisis of responsibility, and we welcome David to the program.

Hi, David.

How are you?

I'm doing great, Glenn.

Good to be with you.

This is a great book.

Really, really fascinating and really well written.

I want to kind of get into the meat of a lot of it and just kind of go over some of the points in your book.

First, explain the crisis of responsibility.

Explain the theory of just that.

Yeah, I mean, essentially,

in line with how you sort of set it up, there was an underlying theme out of the financial crisis, and it really has sort of been baked into the American understanding of what took place,

that there was some great big

infraction that took place.

And if you're left of center, you believe that infraction came out of Wall Street.

And if you're right of center, you believe that infraction came from government, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, maybe even Federal Reserve monetary policy.

And And there's a certain kind of prima facie truth to both sides.

Wall Street had

its fair share of negligence,

and most certainly government housing policy contributed greatly.

But the problem was that both narratives, whether on the right or left, were perfectly willing to treat Main Street as a victim of the crisis and to totally ignore Main Street's culpability in the crisis.

And so as I studied it further and further,

it became just too easy and too simplistic to say that big greedy bankers were giving money to people, and then those people

really wanted to pay it back and just couldn't, and the government was asleep at the wheel and forcing the banks to do this and so forth and so on.

There was all kinds of policy failure.

So this is the responsibility.

There was a responsibility crisis.

So, David, this is not medicine that most people want to hear.

And we've talked about it for years when they were saying these were predatory loans.

Well, some of them were, but a lot of times, look, I went in.

You don't need to ask.

I don't need to show you my proof

of even a wage.

I don't have to prove anything.

That was us thinking, well, this is great.

And

we were in it.

They weren't necessarily predatory.

They were working almost in some ways with us to create this because we wanted it.

Well, and I actually use the term, there was something very predatory going on, Glenn.

It was predatory borrowing.

And it's a term I use in the book because the fact of the matter is, best case, you had people...

that were willing to take loans irresponsibly, that believed they could pay it back, hoped they could pay it back, but were being somewhat reckless.

Worst case, they were committing full-blown fraud, absolutely lying and just assuming that even though their cash flow would not enable them to service the mortgage, the property would continue escalating and they would just participate in this little pyramid scheme that became the U.S.

housing market from 2004 to 2006.

But then, as I really delve into in chapter four of the book, this is the part that breaks my heart morally and culturally, is the fact of the matter is we had no financial crisis if it weren't for the people that were perfectly able to meet their loan obligations, that actually could make their payment.

Yeah, maybe their house price had gone down in value and it was unfortunate and so forth, but they had the assets, they had the income, but they were allowed to just walk away from the loans.

And this is the area that I think warrants a further cultural and moral conversation: is to why in 1991 in the savings and loan crisis, when 20% of Americans were upside down in their home, did we have less than 1%

of a default rate?

And yet in 2008, just 17 years later, not only did you see upwards of 20% of people walking away from their homes, but this is the worst part.

They could go to the bar and brag about it.

on Friday night.

That was the part that to me indicated this crisis of responsibility.

So there's a great deal of difference now.

One of my favorite presidential stories I think that very few people know is about Harry Truman, who I may disagree with his policies here and there.

I think was a really decent, decent man.

In World War II, he comes back from World War II and he gets a loan to start a business and he runs a men's clothing store, he and his partner.

They go into business, things

don't go well, and he goes goes bankrupt, I think, in the mid-20s.

It takes him until he's president to pay all those loans back.

He doesn't just take the bankruptcy.

He says, Look, it was my fault that we didn't make it.

I borrowed this money, and when I borrowed it, I said I would pay it back.

And so

I'm going to pay it back.

And he paid every person, every lender he paid back, even though he had the ability to go bankrupt.

That's right.

I think that speaks to a certain character and ethos that existed.

And in fact, the whole Great Depression, by the way, if you've read some of what Amity Schlades has written on it, it's fascinating.

It was a culture in which at then you could really argue people had tremendous justification in needing to sort of walk away from some obligation.

But there was a stigma.

that said, I'm not going to do that.

I'm not going to be a deadbeat.

There was struggle, but 2008 was not a situation defined by that legitimate struggle.

It was a self-induced problem from excessive greed.

And what I argue in the book is that that greed at Wall Street that we're all very quick to condemn was exactly the same covetousness on Main Street.

Wall Street, they just wore...

you know, fancier suits and had more zeros and so forth involved.

But it was the same, it was cut from the same moral cost.

Right.

And you're not dismissing the

hideousness of Wall Street and the greed there that they went through.

You're just saying.

No, I'm not.

I'm not.

I'm not.

But I will say this, Clennam.

This is very important.

If we were actually being honest, we would be more critical of Wall Street's incompetence than we would their greed.

Wall Street did something horrifically wrong.

They bet in big numbers that Main Street would pay their bills.

That was the tremendous folly of Wall Street.

Okay.

All right.

You have to continue to listen to this.

If you are looking for some answers and some things of how we got here and how we can fix it, Crisis of Responsibility is a must-read.

We'll continue with its author in a second.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Did you miss any of the show today?

No problem.

Go to Glennbeck.com slash podcast to listen on demand whenever and wherever you are.

For free, that's Glennbeck.com/slash podcast.

With David Bonson, the author of Crisis of Responsibility, David French did the foreword for it.

It's an exceptional book.

And David is here to continue the conversation.

David,

before we move off of

the personal responsibility,

one of the reasons why we're having

that we may have real trouble in the future is because all of us, or many of us,

have decided that we are going to take the easier route for one reason or another.

And you point out that

one of the big signs is the disability insurance that we're now on and the record numbers, and how that's just not possible to be real.

Well, I mean, it would require a certain leap of faith that is somewhat staggering medically because 100%

of the 700%

increase in disability claims over the last eight years is limited to the area of back pain and anxiety.

So somehow you have to believe that there has been absolutely no increase in anything organic or organ-related, neurological, cardio, respiratory, all these things.

And yet it just simply comes down to the two areas where any old doctor can write a note and get somebody somebody out.

So it's really quite distressing.

It is because it's a 700% increase.

Yeah, well, 700% in just eight years.

I mean, the numbers going back for a generation are far worse than even that.

And that's tracking those using Social Security.

So

what is this telling you, David?

It's telling me that we have right now a segment of the the society that is comfortable to live off the public dole,

not work, receive compensation for it, and to do so with highly questionable claims about their own physical and mental health.

And that the reason for that is the underlying breakdown of morality and breakdown of

dignity that is embedded in a work ethic, the very work ethic that made America the greatest nation on earth.

So

you point out early in the book that we are addicted to blame, and until we start taking responsibility for ourselves,

we're just going to get worse and worse.

Where do we begin?

Well, one of the things, you know, I believe very much, as is the case of most really stellar recovery programs for those who have wrestled with personal demons, that of course, the very first step is to admit you have a problem.

And that's one of the reasons I suggest in the book that admitting we're in this position and stopping the blame casting.

The next time, see, I'm a conservative, limited government advocate, but the next time the government does something that really bothers me, I want to be able to stop and say, okay, the government could be wrong here, but what else could be going on?

Not just simply rely on the fact that big government is always and forever the permanent recipient of my frustration, ire, and blame.

And likewise, that person who has been fired from a couple corporate jobs and is personally very vindictive at corporate America to always assume their sort of default psychology is that the man is out to get them, so to speak.

Breaking down that mentality in our personal lives, but recognizing that we in fact have it.

And I wish very much as a right-wing guy that this was something that the left had a monopoly on.

Right.

But I actually think that they had for many years.

Okay, hang on, we're going to pick it up there, the author of Crisis of Responsibility.

If you're looking for answers of what the hell happened to my country, how did we get here?

What do I do about it?

And how do I change my life and my circumstances?

A must-read book, Crisis of Responsibility, came out a few weeks ago.

Our cultural addiction to blame and how you can cure it.

David Bonson is the author of the book.

He describes himself as

a national review kind of conservative.

David, you start out with a quote from

Foucault, which

this is the postmodernism BS, radical leftist that really caused, I think, a lot of the arrogance and elitism that we have in academia now.

But you follow it with a quote from Gustav Le Bon,

who was a critic of socialism.

And throughout the book, you kind of, it's almost Jeffersonian in the way you do this as he wrote a letter between an argument between his head and his heart.

You say there's an even-handedness that we're missing, and

we need to really

have a balance and hold each side to task.

That's right.

I think at the heart of this really intense polarization that we're experiencing in the political culture and this kind of tribalization that has taken place,

the ability to somehow magically interpret literally every single event that happens through some sort of partisan lens is a byproduct of the crisis of responsibility.

That we have so removed ourselves from family, church, community,

that

the mediating institutions of society that are so important for good civic life have been discarded and it's forced us into this kind of obsessive and polarized manner of living.

I feel like we've made our religion our political party.

And that's always the end run of statism.

And this is the thing I want to point out, Glenn, because I really believe a target of the audience I had with the book are those who are right now very susceptible to the present populist uprising, which I acknowledge is responding to things that deserve to be responded to.

The elites, the big institutionalists have failed.

And yet, my fear is that by us going forward and saying things like if we just renegotiate a trade deal with China, all these jobs are coming back to Ohio, instead of acknowledging that there's actually been a total paradigm shift in the culture, not just economically and technologically, but culturally and morally.

That what we're doing is setting the table for more statism later.

Because when this populist uprising inevitably fails, we're not going to turn to greater individual responsibility, but rather to some sort of messiah to come bail us out.

And that messiah has always been the nanny state.

And that's what I'm trying to avoid.

So we have,

and it rings all the way through this book, and it is really,

I think, an important

book and study that you have done.

But I look at things like, for instance, you take on higher education and you say, you know, it's not the either or.

What's wrong with universities?

It's not the rising student debt.

It's not the spread of relatism.

It's both debt and indoctrination, economic and ideological.

And so

here is the problem that I would like you to help me noodle through.

People will say, and we see it in politics all the time.

Well, I can't not send my kid to college because that's the system.

And so it just continues to cycle through this.

I well, I've got, I've only got two choices.

It's a binary choice.

I vote for the donkey or the elephant.

And so the system is built to keep you in that.

How do you convince enough people to break that model?

Like most things, bottom up, one family at a time.

And I'm not suggesting, and I actually go to great lengths to say this, that people no longer go to college.

What I'm saying is have a thoughtful, intentional conversation.

The student,

the parents, the maybe teachers are involved.

What are the goals?

What are you trying to accomplish?

What is it you're looking to do with your life?

For one thing, the lack of that conversation is one of the great reasons I think we have this systemic extended adolescence where our whole society has decided it's okay for people to be kids all the way through their 20s.

I I have no problem with people starting these conversations, again, with a lot of open-endedness and vulnerability around them, but looking at what their goals may be.

Now, maybe they want to go to college to meet a spouse.

Maybe they need specialized vocational training.

There's all kinds of reasons to go.

But don't go because, A, if you're a parent, you want to be able to brag to your friends where your kid went to school.

I think that is one of the biggest drivers of this whole mess, frankly.

But also,

having the student involved in what it is they want out of their life and how is college going to advance it.

And so I think that it will not take place overnight.

But right now, what we're seeing is it's always economic, right?

The economics are forcing a cultural moment.

David, there's a lot of people who are

who I think fought for 10, 15, 20 years and have been fighting and fighting and fighting to change this and to and to do the right thing and they feel I think at this point nobody's listening nobody's changing anything nothing happens I just keep getting on the short end of the stick and I can't afford to live this way anymore I I have to have somebody who is listening to me that is going to plow the way because I've tried.

I think there's a lot of people who have really tried for a long time and they feel like they're just being mowed over.

In terms of the higher education conversation, the whole thing, all of it.

Higher education, the jobs, income.

They see the direction of the country.

They know, but they feel like, what am I going to do?

I've tried.

I've tried to do everything right.

And I just keep getting screwed.

And that frustration is perfectly understandable and rational and probably in most cases accurate.

And yet, like any other frustration we face, as soon as we're able to sort of calm the emotions, settle down, and think through it, the only thing we can do is keep fighting.

We cannot give up.

The free and virtuous society that I am advocating, that I want as my telos out of this book and out of my life efforts, can only come about by an army of people from the bottom up who believe in living morally responsible lives.

The frustrations that we feel can never become an abdication of our own responsibility.

You know, David, in the Warden School of Business, I don't believe they teach moral sentiments.

They only teach wealth of nations, if they still even teach that.

And I think your book

is really a new kind of moral sentiments that,

you know, if the people don't change,

you know,

let me phrase it.

What we're going through right now is really a reflection of what we have allowed ourselves to accept or become over a very long period of time.

And so

we have to fundamentally change, and the system will change.

That's right.

It starts with us, and then there is no limit to what we can do.

It becomes infectious in our families, infectious in our communities, and a lot of the things I describe or prescribe in chapter 11, the individual things that I am suggesting people do,

that contagious piece takes over.

And not only does it bring greater satisfaction and joy in our own lives, but I think serves as an example for how communities need to function.

I have an incredible optimism, even in the face of everything we're dealing with right now, even in this polarized political age and in this dysfunctional and sometimes morally reprobate culture, I have a tremendous amount of optimism that what made us great can make us great again if we stop the wain casting and look forward.

So let me ask you this, David, because I feel the same thing.

The more I look at the opportunities that are on the horizon

and stop looking at the past, recognize the past, recognize the mistakes, try to correct those mistakes, and then see the opportunities that are on the horizon.

I am really, really optimistic, more optimistic than I've been in probably 10 or 15 years.

With that being said,

we are,

I mean, good heavens, we are facing a bucket load of stuff that only the worst times in the world's history was it this bad around the world or had the seeds of being this bad around the world.

Where do you see us in 20 years?

You know, it's very difficult because most project, whatever I predict right now about 20 years, has a 0% chance of playing out.

One thing I've learned as an economist, Glenn, is humility.

And these types of predictions are amazing.

And also as one who believes in the providence of God, that he has a way of surprising us.

Would I say things will be significantly better in 20 years?

I can't say that, but I can say this.

There are unsustainable things taking place.

We talked about the higher education business model.

We talked about the lack of school choice opportunity for underprivileged and often minority families.

Those things are unsustainable.

There will be change there.

There will be improvement.

The one thing I'll say for all the good and the bad that can be said around the Donald Trump phenomena, nobody could have predicted it.

Nobody saw it coming.

And I believe that what will take place in 20 years, just as the fall of communism in the early 90s came out of nowhere, Whatever takes place in the next 20 years is likely to shock us all, for good and for bad.

But I i want us those who are sort of the remnant who believe in the values of our country believe in faith and family but believe in taking initiative over our own lives i think that one of the things glenn that is most discouraging is that the backbone of america that kind of um nostalgic uh image we get of these blue-collar families that just want to you know be there with each other work hard and come home and and worship and and live together i fear that that is what's falling apart.

That that

ethos is disintegrating.

What I desperately hope we will see over the next 20 years is individuals not only taking responsibility for their own economic well-beings,

but taking responsibility for their individual decisions, building strong families, and then the one piece that I think is so important I wrote about near the end of the book, getting their joy out of their production, not their consumption.

Seeing themselves as image bearers of God that are here to produce on planet Earth and not merely be a consumer.

I believe that that alone can change the world.

David, thank you so much.

God bless.

The book is Crisis of Responsibility, Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It by David Bonson.

You can get that at bookstores everywhere, as well as following him him on Twitter at David B-A-H-N-S-E-N.

They're still bookstores?

Well, I mean, they're online, but yeah.

The best of Glenn Beck.

Stu, time for one story.

Choose your news.

New Yorkers repeatedly ticketed, even though they don't have a car.

Headline number two.

Mother turns placenta into smoothie

and serves it to kids who say it's yummy.

That's just a, it's not even a

what is wrong with people?

What is wrong with people?

Placenta is like one of those words that's disgusting, even if you don't know what it means.

There's just something about the sound of it that's gross.

Headline number three: New York has finally arrested the serial underwear stealer.

Wow.

Okay.

So let's go through these.

First of all, absolutely no chance placenta wins.

No, no, no, no, no.

Placenta is out.

No, no.

I did not want to hear about a placenta.

She said her kids.

Listen to this.

She said her kids said that it was really good.

She said drinking the smoothie gives them energy, better, and

deeper sleep.

And she said her kids liked it because it had berries in it.

That's because they like berries, not because they like placenta.

Wow, if you don't want to get out of here,

placenta smoothie, that's fine.

Have I learned a lesson here to not rule a story out or you'll tell me about it?

Because that's something I know.

There was much more to that story.

Okay, good.

I'm glad I skipped it.

There's a part of me that kind of wants to know how you're getting a ticket when you're not a driver.

But, I mean, how do you go against the serial underwear stealer?

I want to know what this is about.

In his confession, he said he stole underwear because he felt urges.

On several occasions, he entered a home and opened the hampers and...

picked through it to find soiled women's underwear.

He was taken into custody.

It happened around 9 a.m.

last Thursday.

Young woman in her house was alone.

Prosecutors, she was sleeping, but woke up when she heard the door open.

She called out, hello, and that's when she saw the underwear thief in her home.

The underwear thief had been in her home several times.

She then locked the door and called 911.

The responding officers say that the underwear thief was at the door of another house in the neighborhood, pretending to knock on the door.

They found several pairs of soiled women's panties on him.

And

here's the kicker of this:

he's a New York State judge and very well respected.

And his colleague said, We never expected this, but he's very good, and everybody likes him.

So we're just going to have to watch and see how this plays out.

Wow.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.