Glenn Beck Promotes Anti-Semitic, Pro-Nazi Author

[Bonam]

That would be two dimensional.

A line between two endpoints is a one dimensional object. A plane (as in the political compass test linked to in another thread) is a two dimensional object. 2D is already a lot better for modeling the range of political positions than 1D, though perhaps still not sufficient to really be a good description.

[Guest TrueMetis]

A line between two endpoints is a one dimensional object. A plane (as in the political compass test linked to in another thread) is a two dimensional object. 2D is already a lot better for modeling the range of political positions than 1D, though perhaps still not sufficient to really be a good description.

Right, My brain wasn't working there sorry.

[Jack Weber]

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.

Look,obviously you cannot come to grips with the fact that the political right has more than a few horrendous skeletons in it's closet,as does the left.That's the only reason I can come up with to explain why you think all totalitarian governments of the 20th century all come from the left...A few did...A few came from the right...

I don't know what to say?

I could shoot down more than a few things you've written here with quotes from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and a couple of others...

I can't be bothered wasting my time...

I will say this...

You are not entirely historically accurate and you are simply incorrect...

Edited July 27, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

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.

Really, 'cuz I don't think so. I can watch 'Triumph of the Will' to which I neither agree nor 'feel right' about, but I can gain insight into the mechanisms of modern propaganda methodology. You know, the Big Lie. This is no different than observing modern propaganda pieces or trying to detect or decipher the political messaging in mainstream media.

Now if you want to argue that The Office (US series) - which I do agree with and feel very right about - has some sort of inherent propaganda value, then clearly I have some ways to go in my personal research. But as for the stuff that is 'put out there' by the news media, I have no illusions about it all being truthful or warm and fuzzy, rah, rah, rah.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Shwa

[sharkman]

Are you sure about that? I wonder why corporations spend trillions on advertising dollars if these forms of media have no success in 'helping' us shape our minds on things or products and don't affect their bottom lines. Obviously it works and it is quantifiable. News media affects us as well, don't kid yourself.

[Bryan]

I really used to like Glenn back when he was on CNN. He provided a nice rational balance to their otherwise left-leaning programming. Ever since he moved over to Fox, he's simply gotten more and more crazy. I'm lost as to what the difference is though. Was CNN holding him back, or is he just playing a character on Fox?

[ToadBrother]

I really used to like Glenn back when he was on CNN. He provided a nice rational balance to their otherwise left-leaning programming. Ever since he moved over to Fox, he's simply gotten more and more crazy. I'm lost as to what the difference is though. Was CNN holding him back, or is he just playing a character on Fox?

I'm sure he's just playing a character, just like Coulter and Limbaugh do to. There are of course chumps on both the left and the right who buy into their performance art, but look at these guys, they're like right wing rock stars, they can say the most absurd things and you'll have the loyal legions going "Yeah!" But one does have to be careful when playing that game. Coulter really did go too far too many times and became far too embarrassing. Beck hasn't seemed to cross the Rubicon yet (though I'm amazed, he has said enough insane things). Limbaugh is the master, the Phil Donahue of conservative talk radio. He never gets quite so absurd that people go "That guy must be nuts!"

[Pliny]

Look,obviously you cannot come to grips with the fact that the political right has more than a few horrendous skeletons in it's closet,as does the left.That's the only reason I can come up with to explain why you think all totalitarian governments of the 20th century all come from the left...A few did...A few came from the right...

I don't know what to say?

I could shoot down more than a few things you've written here with quotes from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and a couple of others...

I can't be bothered wasting my time...

I will say this...

You are not entirely historically accurate and you are simply incorrect...

Right and left are not that important to the point. Perhaps Pinochet did not originate on the left.

For one such as myself who views the State as on a spectrum of minimal to maximal all centrally planned societies are, in their extreme, totally socialist or fascist or communist or whatever political label you want to give them.

But Mussolini's ties to socialism from 1900 to 1914 are well known. He joined the socialist party in 1900. In 1911 as editor of the La Lotta Di Classe(Class War) he went to jail for 5 months for sedition and emerged a socialist star. A leading socialist, Olindo Vernocchi, declared: "From today, you Benito, are not only the representative of the Romagna Socialists but the Duce of all revolutionary socialists in Italy." - Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg.

Mussolini joined the formal leadership of the party and 4 months later took over the editorship of the national newspaper Avanti! one of the plum posts of European radicalism. Lenin approvingly took note in Pravda.

Goldberg goes on to say, "Had he died in 1914 there's little doubt that Marxist theorists would be invoking Mussolini as a heroic martyr to the proletarian struggle."

It wasn't until the first world war that his support for the war turned socialists against him.

As for Hitler, would you call him a conservative? The right wing is about "conservatism". It is about the status quo and perhaps may be reactionary. Is it revolutionary, is it about establishing a new State?

I think this is the mistake made in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The acceptance of communist propaganda that it was a right wing movement. It was more a different leftist movement such as the "New left" that arose in the sixties.

The socialists and communists distanced themselves form fascists and Nazi's because they didn't promote the ownership of production for the proletariat and condemn the bourguoisie. They associated those movements with capitalism.

Hitler did not like Communists at all, that is true. It was after all spawned by Marx and Engels who were, Jews. Hitler thought Communism was a Jewish conspiracy.

As for socialism, in 1920 Hitler and Anton Drexler wrote the Nazi Party platform and it was dedicated to the overarching principle that "the common good must come before self-interest". The twenty five points of the platform do not sound anything less than socialist.

I don't know what to say?

I could shoot down more than a few things you've written here with quotes from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and a couple of others.

William Shirer would have done the world a service had he not accepted entirely the Stalinist propaganda label for Fascism and Nazism as pro-bourgeoisie and anti-proletariat. They did differ from socialism and communism in that respect but they were still statist ideologies.

I can't be bothered wasting my time...

If you wish to maintain your point of view you will be wasting your time.

I will say this...

You are not entirely historically accurate and you are simply incorrect...

The above regarding Mussolini and Hitler are factual.

It wasn't until the thirties that the association with socialism or the "left" became important and the attempt was "successfully" made to disassociate Nazism and Fascism with Communists and socialists and associate them with capitalists and the bourgeoisie. Prior to that they were one of more than a few left wing socialist movements.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Pliny

[ToadBrother]

It wasn't until the thirties that the association with socialism or the "left" became important and the attempt was "successfully" made to disassociate Nazism and Fascism with Communists and socialists and associate them with capitalists and the bourgeoisie. Prior to that they were one of more than a few left wing socialist movements.

At least with Nazism, whatever its roots (which were nationalistic and certainly socialistic, though vehemently anti-Communist), the whole movement was little more than the vehicle that Hitler used to gain and maintain power. He was quite happy to do deals with industrialists, to make the rich richer and all that. Frankly other than perhaps in Italy, I don't think Fascism was ever really a coherent political ideology. It didn't really exist in the same way that, say, Communism or Free Market Democracy existed. It served the purpose of inflaming nationalistic sentiments and guaranteeing its advocates unlimited power. The problem here is even defining Fascism. Other than producing strongmen (Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain), it really seems just a lot of vapid nationalist anti-Communist rhetoric (look at the Falangists in Spain busily justifying Franco's rule and policies).

Edited July 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

Are you sure about that? I wonder why corporations spend trillions on advertising dollars if these forms of media have no success in 'helping' us shape our minds on things or products and don't affect their bottom lines. Obviously it works and it is quantifiable. News media affects us as well, don't kid yourself.

It clearly has some effect--some people still believe in the "Saving Jessicva Lynch" propaganda extravaganza.

But you're wrong--the effect is not quantifiable.

[bloodyminded]

Goldberg goes on to say, "Had he died in 1914 there's little doubt that Marxist theorists would be invoking Mussolini as a heroic martyr to the proletarian struggle."

Since serious scholars of fascism have thoroughly discrtedited Goldberg's "liberal Fascism" hypothesis--and only bothered to do so because they noticed that people like yourself were taking his nonsense seriously--I'd be careful about using him as a source.

Put another way: use any source you like, of course...but when discussing fascism, why not cite people whose life's work is the study of fascism, rather than citing someone whose agenda is "conservatives=Good/liberals=Bad"?

Hitler did not like Communists at all, that is true. It was after all spawned by Marx and Engels who were, Jews. Hitler thought Communism was a Jewish conspiracy.

And you've helpfully brought this back around to the original post.

The author, whom Beck cites approvingly, telling his audience that "patriots" should read her book....felt exactly the same way about the Jews and Communists. It was her central thesis.

[Pliny]

Since serious scholars of fascism have thoroughly discrtedited Goldberg's "liberal Fascism" hypothesis--and only bothered to do so because they noticed that people like yourself were taking his nonsense seriously--I'd be careful about using him as a source.

Put another way: use any source you like, of course...but when discussing fascism, why not cite people whose life's work is the study of fascism, rather than citing someone whose agenda is "conservatives=Good/liberals=Bad"?

My citations are not from Goldberg but from Goldberg's citations. Others warned of the rise of national socialism, such as Hayek, out of a government of central planning. It is the central planner that concentrates the power necessary for the establishment of totalitarianism. It becomes the accepted goal that the collective good or the common good is the sole criteria for the central planner but he will point out that if his hands are tied chaos is the result and thus he arrogates more power to the State.

Critics of Goldberg will of course be "conservative", i.e., maintain the status quo, but that is how socialism will be allowed to creep up on the unwitting populace. If it is not fathomable to associate the extreme left with the extreme right, people will again wonder how fascism gained power - It is mainly because it was there for the taking and that power was centralized by the very concept of the common good. It is only in the furtherance of that idea that the final end of the total socialist state can be realized.

If it isn't obvious to you that the central planner, wishes to plan, and he can only do so without being hampered by individual concern or such political hamstrings as democracy, then I would suggest you have renounced your individuality. The central planner's presentation is that the plan is for the common good. There is no other way a populace, especially an educated populace, will accept a single minded direction for society. The greater the agreement in society to that basic principle of acting in the interests of the collective good the closer you are to tyranny.

I don't know if you have heard the current cry that the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. I believe this to be true. Unfortunately, capitalism is the strawman in this scenario. Although governments have been attempting to redistribute wealth, and level the playing field for the last century we haven't seen a "leveling of the playing field" in the least. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. people really need to take a look at all the policies that government has initiated for the "common good" and do a serious re-evaluation of the results.

That intellectuals will denigrate Goldberg's work is a sure sign they wish to remain the intellectuals they are. History has illustrated that they have accepted the socialist propaganda that true socialism is about the welfare of the proletariat and the common good and not about tyranny or totalitarianism whatsoever. Even though...individualism, individual thought, and all disagreement must be subverted or the central plan for the common good cannot be achieved.

I don't believe that any person or board of directors can possibly know what is the best direction for society and every individual in society. Some individuals will surely suffer because of policies of the central planner - it is unavoidable. So does it bode well for society that the central planner should decide who shall suffer or would it be best left to the natural goodness of humanity to just pick up what it can bear in the nature of it's common or collective good?

And you've helpfully brought this back around to the original post.

The author, whom Beck cites approvingly, telling his audience that "patriots" should read her book....felt exactly the same way about the Jews and Communists. It was her central thesis.

As I have pointed out, it was the central thesis of Tommy Douglas as well. We can't condemn someone for upholding the extant mores of a society and hypocritically praise another who held similar views towards Hitler, as Tommy Douglas did; at least prior to his meeting of Hitler. Mussolini didn't like Hitler much either but he wouldn't abandon Fascism, the centrally planned socialist society and neither did Tommy Douglas abandon his socialist concepts.

What is relevant is how tyranny enabled the mores of a society to condemn others to death camps. It was allowed to happen simply because in general people held the concept of the "common good". Those who did not hold that concept were the enemies of the central planner, individuals and the promoters of liberty were one front, and those who threatened the position of the central planner, the communists, the socialists were the other front. Add in a few scientific concepts of eugenics and racial purity for the common good of the nation, and voila - Auschwitz is born.

It is only when ideas can freely be discussed and expressed that a society will progress. The central planner will only follow a single plan. Let's make sure we don't go there.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

As I have pointed out, it was the central thesis of Tommy Douglas as well.

???

Anti-semitism was not "the central thesis of Tommy Douglas," whatever that odd phrase even means.

We're talking about a book that Beck promoted...and the book was about Jews being rotten.

Hell, you just criticized this very thesis...until it is promoted by a right-winger, and then it magically becomes a matter of historical context.

I'm not talking about some contextual-historical bad views that many people held; I'm talking about the wilful promotion of hate through written polemics.

I think you're a little too eager to defend the bizarre, weepy fear-mongerer known as Glenn Beck. It's distorted your logic here.

Edited August 11, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

???

Anti-semitism was not "the central thesis of Tommy Douglas," whatever that odd phrase even means.

We're talking about a book that Beck promoted...and the book was about Jews being rotten.

Hell, you just criticized this very thesis...until it is promoted by a right-winger, and then it magically becomes a matter of historical context.

I'm not talking about some contextual-historical bad views that many people held; I'm talking about the wilful promotion of hate through written polemics.

I think you're a little too eager to defend the bizarre, weepy fear-mongerer known as Glenn Beck. It's distorted your logic here.

No...

He's just a right wing libertarian who thinks all bad political ideologies are leftist and cannot come to grips with the obvious fact that the right has a few ugly skeletons in it's closet,as well...

As far as Mr.Becks tenuous grip on reality goes...See the video clips...

Edited August 11, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

No...

He's just a right wing libertarian who thinks all bad political ideologies are leftist and cannot come to grips with the obvious fact that the right has a few ugly skeletons in it's closet,as well...

As far as Mr.Becks tenuous grip on reality goes...See the video clips...

Yes, I've seen them; and I've watched the pretty devastating take-downs of Beck by commentators and comedians. They're priceless.

[Pliny]

???

Anti-semitism was not "the central thesis of Tommy Douglas," whatever that odd phrase even means.

Eugenics and racial purity was a part of his central thesis. I should have been more explicit but out of Eugenics grew the concept of the genetic inferiority of Jews.

We're talking about a book that Beck promoted...and the book was about Jews being rotten.

The book was not about that. She may have had a low opinion of Jews but that was not unusual in those days.

Hell, you just criticized this very thesis...until it is promoted by a right-winger, and then it magically becomes a matter of historical context.

I would criticize her for those concepts and I criticize Tommy Douglas for his similar views in Eugenics. It seems you would criticize her but not Tommy Douglas for holding similar concepts.

I'm not talking about some contextual-historical bad views that many people held; I'm talking about the wilful promotion of hate through written polemics.

You are talking about contextual historical bad views. Is Glenn Beck promoting hatred of Jews? I don't think so.

I think you're a little too eager to defend the bizarre, weepy fear-mongerer known as Glenn Beck. It's distorted your logic here.

Well, I am glad you think I employ logic in some moments.

Actually, my opinion of Beck is that he is working in the right direction politically and he has the right political concepts but I wouldn't find myself defending all of his views.

If you wish to follow the crowd and hold the views of the general populace, politically speaking, then you can. It's a safe road. It is very difficult to take an individual stance without being called things like "bizarre" and being "subject to devastating take downs."

Personally, I think it takes a strong individual to state his mind and risk his security and sanity. Eventually, unless Beck's faith is strong enough and I personally think his faith is his weakness, he will cave in.

Without looking at the man, there are a lot of things that his research reveals in history.

[dre]

Eugenics and racial purity was a part of his central thesis. I should have been more explicit but out of Eugenics grew the concept of the genetic inferiority of Jews.

Well, I am glad you think I employ logic in some moments.

Actually, my opinion of Beck is that he is working in the right direction politically and he has the right political concepts but I wouldn't find myself defending all of his views.

If you wish to follow the crowd and hold the views of the general populace, politically speaking, then you can. It's a safe road. It is very difficult to take an individual stance without being called things like "bizarre" and being "subject to devastating take downs."

Personally, I think it takes a strong individual to state his mind and risk his security and sanity. Eventually, unless Beck's faith is strong enough and I personally think his faith is his weakness, he will cave in.

Without looking at the man, there are a lot of things that his research reveals in history.

I think youre drastically overestimating this guy, simply because he parrots a few common garden variety slogans that you happen to agree with.

[Pliny]

I think youre drastically overestimating this guy, simply because he parrots a few common garden variety slogans that you happen to agree with.

I think Americans need to look to their Constitution and their history a little more than the Left wing would like them to look.

Other than Glenn Beck pointing out the importance of that I have not too much more in common with him.

[Jack Weber]

I think Americans need to look to their Constitution and their history a little more than the Left wing would like them to look.

Other than Glenn Beck pointing out the importance of that I have not too much more in common with him.

I guess ol' Beck should send all those misinformed Americans to Glenn Beck University to allow Glenn to tell them about it?

Are you saying you don't have alot in common with a kook who is also a gold shilling buffoon???

Most people don't...It's a wonder why people fall for his paranoid crapola?

[bloodyminded]

Actually, my opinion of Beck is that he is working in the right direction politically and he has the right political concepts but I wouldn't find myself defending all of his views.

If you wish to follow the crowd and hold the views of the general populace, politically speaking, then you can. It's a safe road. It is very difficult to take an individual stance without being called things like "bizarre" and being "subject to devastating take downs."

So...Beck is a brave voice in the wilderness, and his admirers are thougthful and courageous?

Interesting hypothesis; and I'm sure Beck basks in exactly this "Great Man" delusion.

Without looking at the man, there are a lot of things that his research reveals in history.

He doesn't have "research." He has a thesis: conservatives are Good, liberals are Bad: and he bangs a lot of square pegs into round holes to "prove" this.

Even his "research" on fascism (which is to say, Goldbeg's "research" on fascism") focusses only on the leftist influences on early fascists--hardly an insight, and well-known for a long time by scholars in this field--and ignores the self-evident right-wing influences. You can't separate these elements for the masturbatory sake of left-bashing, however cherished such a method might be to the "good conservative" religion. Fascism and the Right are not trivial accidents to be ignored at will; the former is fundamentally dependent on the latter. Further, such "research" is decried as simplistic and politicized by these very scholars of fascism.

Edited August 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

Oh Glenn...about 4 mins in:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip337011

[bloodyminded]

Oh Glenn...about 4 mins in:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip337011

Well, that's interesting!

There seems to be two Glenn Becks, neither aware of the other's doings.

[Shady]

Anybody see pictures from the rally?

Pic

Wow!