Bernie Sanders and the Second Great Depression

March 02, 2020

Wikimedia Commons

During the 1930s, the Great Depression made many Americans, especially among the elite class, question the merits of capitalism. Progressives of that era thought the Soviet system might provide some answers. Membership in the American Communist Party grew almost tenfold during the Great Depression (from 6,933 members in 1929 to 66,000 in 1939). While America stopped short of handing the Executive keys to an outright communist, it did elect Franklin D. Roosevelt, the most blatantly socialist president in U.S. history so far.

The rise of the cult of Bernie Sanders indicates something similar is going on today as happened during the Depression of the 1930s. Democratic Socialists of America membership grew almost tenfold over the past decade, with around 5,500 members in 2009 to over 55,000 now. A recent Economist/YouGov poll finds 60% of Democrats under 30 support either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Why the socialist surge? One factor is the absolutely dismal U.S. history and civics education throughout our nation. That's not to say the classes or teachers themselves are dismal – there are still many non-Marxist history teachers in public and private education across the U.S. But the cumulative time spent on U.S. history/civics in school is woefully inadequate to create a thriving electorate. Typically, before a student graduates from high school, they may have a couple years of U.S. history – one in middle school, one in high school – and maybe one year of government/civics. Remarkably, 82% of U.S. colleges don't require a single course in U.S. history or government to earn a degree. And then, even when it is taught, especially in college, it's frequently not the truth: like teaching that the U.S. committed acts in Vietnam almost as bad as things Hitler did (Bernie Sanders actually said this once to a group of ninth graders).

In his farewell address in 1989, President Reagan said: "An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?... We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection… If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit."

The embrace of socialism by the Democratic Party is evidence that this "eradication of the American memory" that Reagan talked about has already happened.

The embrace of socialism by the Democratic Party is evidence that this "eradication of the American memory" that Reagan talked about has already happened. If we're not taught to appreciate the genius of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, it is so much easier to drift toward, and fall for, socialism.

Another factor explaining the modern socialist surge is the American university system. We take America's young people, largely starved of any real foundation in our constitution and history, and send them to college, ripe for reprogramming. For decades, our universities have been the training ground for the perpetuation of Marxism and zealous anti-American philosophy. Every day, millions of young, impressionable adults march into the lion's den like the pale prisoners of Ridley Scott's famous 1984 Macintosh ad, to receive their dose of Marxist indoctrination. America already has thousands of re-education camps – we call them colleges. And the twisted brilliance of this system is that we actually pay the Marxists to re-educate us.

Stark reminders of the effects of this indoctrination can be seen in a series of recently released videos of Bernie Sanders campaign field organizers. In these videos, several young, self-described Marxists discuss their dreams of communist revolution in the U.S. In one rant, a South Carolina field organizer talks reverently about how he learned the "truth" about the Soviet system from one of his college professors. The young man speaks glowingly about the former Soviet Union, as if it was some kind of golden era for humanity and something to aspire to now. America's impressionable students are similarly lied to every day about their nation by very convincing professors (coincidentally, many resemble Bernie Sanders).

So, our U.S. history and civics education is woefully inadequate and too-often tainted by the America-is-evil influence of Howard Zinn's absurd propaganda. And our universities are stocked with Zinn-like priests of the progressive-communist religion, daily molding disciples from the malleable minds of their captive audience. These are certainly serious factors helping create the revolutionary fantasies of Bernie's core supporters. But there is an even more dominant factor causing young adults to put their faith in socialism: the Second Great Depression.

The Second Great Depression is not economic. It is a spiritual depression resulting from erosion of the traditional family, lack of purpose, isolation, and the diminishing influence of religion. And the depression is exacerbated by the effects of technology and social media. The easy drug of tech/entertainment can temporarily numb the depression by distraction. Every time one's mind might veer into thinking about existence, the meaning of life, the state of one's own soul, just reach for that smartphone and scroll those pesky thoughts aside. But this distraction drug is a dark placebo, leaving people feeling even emptier. Our culture is surely the most vapidly distracted culture in world history. And it is also surely one of the most depressed.

Something must fill the spiritual void and, historically, socialism often rushes in.

Something must fill the spiritual void and, historically, socialism often rushes in. We saw it happen around the world, throughout the 20th century. A charismatic "prophet" of socialism comes along when people are hurting, touting the solutions to what people think are the biggest threats, and in short order tyranny makes itself at home.

Traditionally, the spiritual anchor for broad swaths of America has been religion. God provided meaning, identity, morality, and hope amidst uncertainty. Now our culture says you can't be sure of any of those things. It says we can't even know if those things exist (much less God). It says you must find your own truth, find your own meaning. Don't follow God – follow your heart. This is now one of the most common missives our culture aims at its youth. Follow your heart is one of the most dangerous lies our culture preaches. The Old Testament book of Jeremiah says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9).

The follow your heart culture yields to feelings above all else. And no political philosophy caters to feelings more than socialism, especially the feeling of feeling sorry for yourself. Socialism provides the glass-half-empty view of America. It delineates clear villains – the rich and corporations! And it promises instant solutions. It will knock those villains down to size by seizing the means of production and the power of taxation. Forget praying to God for anything, just pull the lever for your local socialist in the voting booth and you'll get instant answers to your greatest needs. Got student debt from your years at re-education camp? Poof! Wiped away. Can't make ends meet with that minimum wage job? Poof! Here's double the money. Having apocalyptic nightmares about climate change? Poof! Green New Deal to the rescue. For young, depressed, spiritually famished socialists, Bernie is a Moses-figure, descending the mountain with his concise list of oppressions and solutions, ready to lead them to the Promised Land. They call it "revolution."

Ever wonder why Democratic Socialists, Bernie supporters, and affiliated groups like Antifa are so enraged? In the absence of God, pressure is put on his replacement to bring fulfillment. Socialism, and ushering in a Green New Deal, and achieving their vision of real justice, simply must work or else. Because there is no alternative for them. These young American socialists regularly frame the importance of these things in existential terms. They've put all their faith in the socialist religion and if they can't force it on everyone – to the streets!

The desperation young Americans feel today is real, but it's very different from the desperation felt by Americans their age during the first Great Depression. The current desperation is borne of affluence – gaining the whole world but losing your soul. It's like a version of survivor's guilt. Having your physical needs met in such abundance, that you become restless and miserable without a spiritual compass to steer you into serving humanity. It's truly mind-boggling that so many young Americans could be raised with a roof over their head, clothes on their back, never missing a meal, and a college education to boot, yet develop contempt for the nation that built such an environment for them. "Bernie Bros" doesn't quite capture the reality of this skewed, self-indulgent Democratic Socialist perspective – it's more like Bernie Brats.

Socialism has always thrived in this gap of hopelessness and despair, because it is people looking to government as God.

Socialism has always thrived in this gap of hopelessness and despair, because it is people looking to government as God. Yet, perhaps the easiest trend to spot in world history is that government makes a terrible, disastrous, and often blood-soaked substitute for God.

We are in the Second Great Depression, but it's not physical starvation this time – it's spiritual starvation. And that makes this Depression even more dangerous to America. A young generation of Americans may have to learn the hard way that socialism will never satisfy their hunger, it will only make it worse.

Be sure to watch the latest Glenn TV Special – Bernie's Radicals: The Fires of Revolution – available now on demand, exclusively at BlazeTV.com.

4 ways Biden is SABOTAGING Trump on his way out of office

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement?

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?