Glenn Beck Promotes Anti-Semitic, Pro-Nazi Author

[bloodyminded]

This book by Elizabeth Dilling, Beck informs his wide-eyed, impressionable audience, is for "patriots."

Meanwhile, how does this square with his "Nazi-ism is part of liberal progressivism" argument?

What a genius.

From the book:

The colored people are a sincerely religious race. As long as they stayed in Africa un-Christianized, they remained, as did pagan white men, savages. Their pagan brothers in Africa today are savages, while in a comparatively few years, under the opportunities of the American government and the inspiration of Christianity, the American Negroes have acquired professions, property, banks, homes, and produced a rising class of refined, home loving people. This is far more remarkable than that many Negroes are still backward. The Reds play upon the Negroes' love of their own people and represent them as persecuted in order to inflame them against the very white people who have in reality given the colored race far greater opportunities than their fellow negroes would give them in Africa today

And about her:

Dilling authored many anti-Semitic books. Dilling was the author of several wildly anti-Semitic works in addition to The Red Network. One polemic titled The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today (originally titled "The Plot Against Christianity") was highlighted by the Anti-Defamation League for its claims that Jews consider non-Jews to be sub-human, and that Jews have a hatred for Christians that is expressed in code in the Talmud. The Jewish Religion also made clear that anti-Semitism was a key component to Dilling's ant-communist philosophy; Dilling wrote: "Marxism, Socialism, or Communism in practice are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority having virtually no property or legal rights. As is discussed elsewhere herein, Talmudic Judaism is the progenitor of modem Communism and Marxist collectivism as it is now applied to a billion or more of the world's population."

Another of Dilling's books, The Octopus, which she wrote under a pseudonym, was described by Life magazine in 1942 as "a yellow-covered compilation of anti-Jewish slanders."

"Ike the kike" and the "Jew frontier." The Encyclopedia of White Power: A Sourcebook on the Radical Racist Right devotes several pages to Dilling, describing her as "the grandmotherly, blue-haired old lady who could always be counted on to respond to a mail solicitation with a few dollars for a variety of anti-Semitic causes." The book notes that Dilling was "the author of several of the most scurrilous attacks on Franklin Roosevelt," and that her hatred of Roosevelt was inspired by her belief that he "was in all likelihood a Jew and his administration a Trojan horse for international communism."

Dilling features prominently in Professor Glen Jeansonne's Women of the Far Right: The Mother's Movement and World War II. Jeansonne noted that Dilling referred to Dwight Eisenhower as "Ike the kike," attacked Richard Nixon for his alleged "service to the synagogue," and smeared John F. Kennedy's New Frontier program as the "Jew frontier."

Nazi supporter who reportedly attended German Nazi party meetings. Media Matters noted that, according to Jeansonne and writer David Luhrssen, Dilling was an ardent supporter of Nazi Germany who incorporated German Nazi propaganda into her writings. Dilling also traveled to Germany in 1938, where she reportedly attended Nazi party meetings and praised Adolf Hitler's leadership.

Perhaps the age-old question, "What's wrong with Glenn Beck?" doesn't need to be asked any more. He's a fool.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006070053

[Shwa]

This book by Elizabeth Dilling, Beck informs his wide-eyed, impressionable audience, is for "patriots."

Meanwhile, how does this square with his "Nazi-ism is part of liberal progressivism" argument?

What a genius.

From the book:

And about her:

Perhaps the age-old question, "What's wrong with Glenn Beck?" doesn't need to be asked any more. He's a fool. http://mediamatters.org/research/201006070053

But then again - and not to detract from the thread in the media section (which I will answer later) - Beck, this author and their bleeting flock would seem to be a shining example of filter #5 yes?

[sharkman]

But I thought you already had a low opinion of Beck. Only now do you think he's crossed the line into fool land? Okay.

[bloodyminded]

But then again - and not to detract from the thread in the media section (which I will answer later) - Beck, this author and their bleeting flock would seem to be a shining example of filter #5 yes?

It sure looks like it, doesn't it?

[bloodyminded]

But I thought you already had a low opinion of Beck. Only now do you think he's crossed the line into fool land? Okay.

I did have a low opinion of Beck. But now he's promoting anti-semitic works by a person who was a Nazi sympathizer.

I find that perplexing...unexpected, even.

And it rather confuses his ongoing thesis about Nazis and the Left.

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[sharkman]

Sorry, I'm not so sure about the description of this author you mention, and the example you gave does not meet your characterization. The quotes of others calling this author all manner of names are simply name calling. Beck might be a simpleton, but this doesn't prove it.

These quotes. Somehow I don't think you dug through Time Life until you found the 1942 quote, so you've probably gotten this list of quotes from some site that doesn't like Beck. Is it interesting?

Edited July 25, 2010 by sharkman

[bloodyminded]

Sorry, I'm not so sure about the description of this author you mention, and the example you gave does not meet your characterization. The quotes of others calling this author all manner of names are simply name calling. Beck might be a simpleton, but this doesn't prove it.

These quotes. Somehow I don't think you dug through Time Life until you found the 1942 quote, so you've probably gotten this list of quotes from some site that doesn't like Beck. Is it interesting?

Mediamatters? It's fairly interesting, I suppose.

but it is a left-wing media watchdog.

Perhaps you'd prefer other sources?

Here's Dilling in her own words:

http://www.iahushua.com/BeWise/dilling.html

Here's from David Duke's site:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/elizabeth-dillings-cautionary-work-the-plot-against-christianity-is-now-online_2635.html

Here's Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Dilling

Here's historian and anti-communist Glen Jeansonne, who says he sometimes agrees with Beck:

Reached for comment yesterday, Jeansonne said that it is "ludicrous that this book written in the 1930s by a woman who was considered a crackpot at the time ... could be cited as an authority on Communism."

Jeansonne described Dilling as a "bigot who believed in ludicrous conspiracy theories" and whose "anti-Semitic" and "sophomoric" writings "appealed to the lunatic fringe" and the "far right."

Jeansonne isn't a left-wing ideologue. He told Media Matters, "I agree with some things Glenn Beck says but certainly not this." He explained that he "personally believe Communism was a terrible idea and was glad to see it implode" but added that "people like Dilling did the cause of anti-Communism a disservice."

According to Jeansonne, Dilling was probably the "most bigoted woman anti-Semite of the period around World War II" and used "long-discredited conspiracy theories" -- including theories advanced in the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- in an effort to link Communism and Judaism.

Jeansonne said that "in addition to being anti-Semitic and anti-Communist, Dilling purported the most convoluted conspiracy theories that are imaginable." He added, "She viewed all sorts of groups with no connection or only the loosest connection as being bound together in an international conspiracy."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006050001

That took me five minutes, sharkman.

But hey, if you want to believe that Beck is backing a winning horse here...go ahead, see if you can defend her.

[Pliny]

bloodyminded and shwa are just examples of how manufacturing consent and the propaganda model it presents doesn't work. It doesn't fool them in the least.

"Using the propaganda model, Manufacturing Consent posits that corporate-owned news mass communication media — print, radio, television — are businesses subject to commercial competition for advertising revenue and profit. As such, their distortion (editorial bias) of news reportage — i.e. what types of news, which items, and how they are reported — is consequence of the profit motive that requires establishing a stable, profitable business; therefore, news businesses favoring profit over the public interest succeed, while those favoring reportorial accuracy over profits fail, and are relegated to the margins of their markets (low sales and ratings)."

Somehow Chomsky and Hermann have forgotten that people have to be watching the media or advertisers aren't tempted to purchase time. Media has to have an audience and that is where the greatest competition is - Acquiring an audience. "News businesses favouring profit over the public interest", as these two claim, soon lose the public interest and do not succeed. Fox news is an example of how news media succeeds. They have the greatest audience but the advertisers are not necessarily politically aligned with Fox. The biggest advertisers are pharmaceutical companies, and even GE, one time owner of MSNBC, does plenty of advertising on Fox. They know where the audience is.

As for Elizabeth Dilling, many people in the thirties were anti-communist and some were pro-fascist as an opposition to Communism and believe it or not anti-semitism was not frowned upon as it is today.

None is too many

For Hitler, the case of the S.S. St. Louis marked a stunning victory. It proved that, in spite of the protestations of the Allied leaders to the contrary, they didn’t want Jews in their countries any more than he wanted them in his. In fact, when a Canadian official was asked how many Jews fleeing from Nazi Europe could be admitted to Canada, he responded: “None is too many.” This eventually became the title of a book, describing Canada’s draconian refugee policies.

You might want to read about Arthurdale, the Eleanor Roosevelt stab at socialism.

Arthurdale

Many "classical liberals" who were traditionally for small government and individualism were marginalized and vilified or simply ignored by pro-socialist intellectuals, activists and big government corporatist fascists. So this is a time of big government. The classical liberal had no where to go against the socialist movements, such as Unions and social activists, that were encouraged by FDR and his big government agenda. They were pushed out of their traditional left-wing political position and became the conservatives. Some real anti-communist activists who held a faith in big government became Nazi sympathizers.

I don't like Beck's preaching however his political facts are correct and linking individuals past and present is interesting. Who knew that Sean Penn's father was a notable activist in his time for socialism? In this case the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

If the "Anti-Semitic, Pro-Nazi Author (And she doesn't care for blacks, either)" had been a modern writer I'm certain Glen Beck would not be promoting her. So let's keep it in context.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Pliny

[punked]

Talk about propaganda pliny has spoken and released a whole lot of crazy on us.

[Pliny]

Talk about propaganda pliny has spoken and released a whole lot of crazy on us.

Advertisers should be falling all over themselves on your doorstep then. Lucky guy. They don't like my message so I'm out of luck.

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded and shwa are just examples of how manufacturing consent and the propaganda model it presents doesn't work. It doesn't fool them in the least.

Somehow Chomsky and Hermann have forgotten that people have to be watching the media or advertisers aren't tempted to purchase time. Media has to have an audience and that is where the greatest competition is - Acquiring an audience. "News businesses favouring profit over the public interest", as these two claim, soon lose the public interest and do not succeed. Fox news is an example of how news media succeeds. They have the greatest audience but the advertisers are not necessarily politically aligned with Fox. The biggest advertisers are pharmaceutical companies, and even GE, one time owner of MSNBC, does plenty of advertising on Fox. They know where the audience is.

They haven't forgotten; indeed, they make no claims about the efficacy of propaganda (something extraordinarily difficult to measure in any case); theirs is an institutional analysis of the propaganda...not of its effects on the general public.

Your irrelevant remarks about who advertises where is entirely beside the point, as Chomsky and Herman do not make claims about "liberal" versus "conservative" media. Indeed, the distinctions between, say CNN and FOX are small matters, marginal in most ways.

As for Elizabeth Dilling, many people in the thirties were anti-communist and some were pro-fascist as an opposition to Communism and believe it or not anti-semitism was not frowned upon as it is today.

Yes, but it IS frowned upon today, and Beck seems to be the only mainstream commentator who exhorts "patriots" to read a book by an author who wrote favourably about the infamous Protocols, among other delights, and openly blamed the Jews fro Communism, and defended the Nazi fascists along these lines.

We're not talking about Nixon muttering imprecations about the "damn Jews"; we're talking about a writer for whom anti-semitism was a key, in fact crucial, component of her work.

I don't like Beck's preaching however his political facts are correct and linking individuals past and present is interesting.

Interestingly, the factually-astute Beck somehow failed to mention that the book he was exhorting was a racist, conspiratorial diatribe.

Also, as I said, after forever linking "the left" to the Nazis (and how this is unforgiveable, in contradiction to how you feel), it'd be interesting to watch him weasel his way out of this one.

He's a buffoon. I don't think for a second that he hates the Jews. I just thinkj he's quite stupid, a little hostile to thought.

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

They haven't forgotten; indeed, they make no claims about the efficacy of propaganda (something extraordinarily difficult to measure in any case); theirs is an institutional analysis of the propaganda...not of its effects on the general public.

Your irrelevant remarks about who advertises where is entirely beside the point, as Chomsky and Herman do not make claims about "liberal" versus "conservative" media. Indeed, the distinctions between, say CNN and FOX are small matters, marginal in most ways.

They make claims about a successful media and that's the point. Not whether propaganda is effective.

Yes, but it IS frowned upon today, and Beck seems to be the only mainstream commentator who exhorts "patriots" to read a book by an author who wrote favourably about the infamous Protocols, among other delights, and openly blamed the Jews fro Communism, and defended the Nazi fascists along these lines.

Yes it is frowned upon today. I don't know if Beck then suggests you read the "Protocols of the elders of Zion"? Does he do that?

What's his reason for quoting her? She was the subject of an inquiry in 1944 regarding her support of Nazism and was acquitted. Not too many after Dec 7, 1941, would remain Nazi-sympathizers.

Tommy Douglas was a great supporter of Hitler and his form of socialism until he went to Germany and saw what he was doing. Do we quote from Douglas's political thesis and condemn the man? If not, why not? Should we accept he retracted his nazi-sympathies? WE know he didn't abandon his socialist ideas.

We're not talking about Nixon muttering imprecations about the "damn Jews"; we're talking about a writer for whom anti-semitism was a key, in fact crucial, component of her work.

Interestingly, the factually-astute Beck somehow failed to mention that the book he was exhorting was a racist, conspiratorial diatribe.

Also, as I said, after forever linking "the left" to the Nazis (and how this is unforgiveable, in contradiction to how you feel), it'd be interesting to watch him weasel his way out of this one.

Fact: Mussolini was a member of left wing socialists before he came to power in the twenties and believed in the centrally planned society.

Fact: Hitler attended many socialist meetings and many of his ideas about central planning society were from socialist ideology.

He's a buffoon. I don't think for a second that he hates the Jews. I just thinkj he's quite stupid, a little hostile to thought.

He is just anti big government and stupidity is a requirement according to what left wing news media types and intellectuals like to propagandize and their sycophants like to parrot.

I consider those who feel they are entitled to engineer other people's lives are buffoons. Beck isn't asking to run your life or have government run your life. He is asking you to oppose the threat to having government or anyone run your life. It's irrelevant what you think of him. If you are not capable of running your own life he is suggesting that the charity of people is better than the coercive efforts of government to aid you.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Topaz]

Glen Beck is new to Fox and this is his one chance to very rich like Hannity so he has to say things for shock value to bring up the ratings and the big bucks for him and Fox Channel. I don't think Hannity or guys like Beck believe half the things they say or do.

[Jack Weber]

Is anyone really shocked that Glenn Beck is promoting a pro-NAZI author,while not understanding the difference between Communism and Fascism?

The man's elevator simply is not going all the way to the top few floors...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J_QLtYqlk

But wait..There's more!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tb_mMPD6hw

[Jack Weber]

If this does'nt prove that Beck has'nt totally lost it(as if he ever had "it"),I don't know what does?

Glenn Beck=

Edited July 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Beck's the gift that keeps on giving!!!

How 'bout these two classics???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNOku6QP4UM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk

[Pliny]

John Stewart is a comedian, right. I laughed a couple of times. I think he takes his work too seriously.

Some comedians get to a point where they take their comedy seriously.

[Jack Weber]

John Stewart is a comedian, right. I laughed a couple of times. I think he takes his work too seriously.

Some comedians get to a point where they take their comedy seriously.

You're right...Occasionally he takes himself too seriously,but that was a classic skewering of a delusional buffoon.

Beck seemingly is serious about what he says...And if he is'nt,there are a sizeable amount of people who believe him anyway!!!

Edited July 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Pliny]

You're right...Occasionally he takes himself too seriously,but that was a classic skewering of a delusional buffoon.

Beck seemingly is serious about what he says...And if he is'nt,there are a sizeable amount of people who believe him anyway!!!

In some respects I too think of Beck as a delusional buffoon when he is preaching but he presents a good argument regarding politics.

I suppose you do not agree that fascism and Nazism grew out of socialist ideology or the call for the establishment of the centrally planned totalitarian state? Research proves that to be true.

Were Castro, Stalin and Mao any lesser the Dictator than Hitler or Mussolini? Certainly, the economies were different and the society structured differently but weren't they all the result of one man's iron grip and master plan?

[Jack Weber]

In some respects I too think of Beck as a delusional buffoon when he is preaching but he presents a good argument regarding politics.

I suppose you do not agree that fascism and Nazism grew out of socialist ideology or the call for the establishment of the centrally planned totalitarian state? Research proves that to be true.

Were Castro, Stalin and Mao any lesser the Dictator than Hitler or Mussolini? Certainly, the economies were different and the society structured differently but weren't they all the result of one man's iron grip and master plan?

We've gone over this before.

Mussolini might have come out of a Socialist background,but he rejected those things.He was one of the architects of the Fascist Manifesto.Before taking power,and after gaining total power,the Italian Fascists persecuted anything that smacked of leftist thought...Violently!!!

Adolph Hitler wrote about how he hated Communism,Socialism,and,Democracy.Hitler was the most virulent Fascist,to date,on this planet.

I don't agree with you at all that Fascism is some sort of leftist construct.It is totalitarian and authoritarian...I suppose that's where it is similar,but the left and the right come to their collective extremes from different positions.

And no,Stalin,Castro,and,Mao were no lesser dictators than the Fascists...They just had a longer amount of time to up the body count...

Edited July 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

We've gone over this before.

Mussolini might have come out of a Socialist background,but he rejected those things.He wass one of the architects of the Fascist Manifesto.Before taking power,and after gaining total power,the Itlaian Fascists persecuted anything that smacked of leftist thought...Violently!!!

Adolph Hitler wrote about how he hated Communism,Socialism,and,Democracy.Hitler was the most virulent Fascist,to date,on this planet.

I don't agree with you at all that Fascism is some sort of leftist construct.It is totalitarian and authoritarian...I suppose that's where it is similar,but the left and the right come to their collective extremes from different positions.

And no,Stalin,Castro,and,Mao were no lesser dictators than the Fascists...They just had a longer amount of time to up the body count...

I think the problem here is how one defines "right". To some, an "extreme right" state would be a Libertarian state, where the government and its power is very limited. To these people, left/right is a question of big/small government more than anything else. Thus, fascism and communism fall on the same side of the spectrum.

To others, such as yourself, extreme right means fascism (which includes big government). Thus fascism and communism fall on opposite extremes of a left/right spectrum from this (your) perspective.

Both are potentially valid viewpoints, they just differ in their definitions or in what they consider the most important features to classify a society by.

The political landscape is not one dimensional, despite the common left/right dichotomy.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Bonam

[Guest TrueMetis]

The political landscape is not one dimensional, despite the common left/right dichotomy.

That would be two dimensional.

[Shwa]

They make claims about a successful media and that's the point. Not whether propaganda is effective.

He is just anti big government and stupidity is a requirement according to what left wing news media types and intellectuals like to propagandize and their sycophants like to parrot.

So are you saying the Propaganda Model is, in fact, effective, but only on one side of the political spectrum?

[Pliny]

So are you saying the Propaganda Model is, in fact, effective, but only on one side of the political spectrum?

I'm not arguing whether propaganda is effective at all. In order to continue watching propaganda you would have to have a propensity to agree with it's statement anyway. It just makes you feel right.

[Pliny]

We've gone over this before.

Mussolini might have come out of a Socialist background,but he rejected those things.He was one of the architects of the Fascist Manifesto.Before taking power,and after gaining total power,the Italian Fascists persecuted anything that smacked of leftist thought...Violently!!!

Adolph Hitler wrote about how he hated Communism,Socialism,and,Democracy.Hitler was the most virulent Fascist,to date,on this planet.

I don't agree with you at all that Fascism is some sort of leftist construct.It is totalitarian and authoritarian...I suppose that's where it is similar,but the left and the right come to their collective extremes from different positions.

And no,Stalin,Castro,and,Mao were no lesser dictators than the Fascists...They just had a longer amount of time to up the body count...

Yeah, we've been over it before. Hitler and Mussolini had the biggest egosof all the socisilaits and thought they could run society better than the socialists.

Socialists actually don't have the gonads to push through to totalitarianism. While they believe that central planning is the only way to go and they will centralize power they are not the bloody revolutionaries or authoritarian militaristic dictators that wind up with the power.

Those that do seize the power are not content with the namby-pamby, do-gooder socialist. When the Mensheviks took power in the Russian parliament in February, the bloody revolutionary Marxist Bolsheviks seized power in October. When the socialists were popular in Germany and Italy and the anti-capitalist sentiment was on the rise power was centralized enough to bring Hitler and Mussolini out of the ranks of the socialists. Where do you think Hitler came from and got his ideas of a centrally planned totalitarian society - from Capitalists? He dreamt it up himself. Of course he hated communism but not until he had power of which communism was the greatest threat. It's a law of the physical universe that two totalitarian ideologies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.