The Root of Beck's Delusions...

[TroySmith]

Beck has been moving gradually towards libertarianism since he was on Headline News....i.e. before the media even acknowledged the tea parties or people like Ron Paul were legitimate. Beck might not agree with many on this board with foreign policy, but he would be an ally on domestic issues.

Beck is a smart man. He wants to make money. If you put a bunch of smart people in a room together they won't all agree and they will compete against each other. Instead of demonizing Beck, we should stand by him on issues we, as individuals, agree on philosophic principle and rationally argue our points in a polite way for things we disagree with.

Why? Because what this country needs more than anything else is a philosophic revolution. To understand the ideas of individualism and freedom. Personally attacking people who don't agree only alienates people. It just puts them on the defensive and reinforces the status quo.

I've seen this too much on this board the last couple pf years. The freedom movement is growing, we need to nurture it like we would a plant, not overwhelm it all at once.

 

[constituent]

I have been scratching my head, trying to figure out how someone like Beck can be 80% of the way there on most issues, but still hold several ridiculous views on wars and "social issues" that seem to be diametrically opposed to his other, more well-reasoned views.

Beck's problem, I have discovered, is religion.

Religion warps Beck's views on "moral" issues and causes him to support the Neocon vision of fighting endless, collective wars, mostly on behalf of Israel. After all, it is a good Christian's duty to protect Israel at any cost. Even if the cost is the downfall of this nation.

Like George W, Beck has relied on religion to keep him off the booze. But like George W, it has also warped his reasoning skills and his ability to think critically.

glenn beck, is that you?

 

[constituent]

Beck has been moving gradually towards libertarianism since he was on Headline News....i.e. before the media even acknowledged the tea parties or people like Ron Paul were legitimate. Beck might not agree with many on this board with foreign policy, but he would be an ally on domestic issues.

Beck is a smart man. He wants to make money. If you put a bunch of smart people in a room together they won't all agree and they will compete against each other. Instead of demonizing Beck, we should stand by him on issues we, as individuals, agree on philosophic principle and rationally argue our points in a polite way for things we disagree with.

Why? Because what this country needs more than anything else is a philosophic revolution. To understand the ideas of individualism and freedom. Personally attacking people who don't agree only alienates people. It just puts them on the defensive and reinforces the status quo.

I've seen this too much on this board the last couple pf years. The freedom movement is growing, we need to nurture it like we would a plant, not overwhelm it all at once.

lol, almost every single of your sixteen posts is promoting glenn beck.

let's try not to be so obvious...

 

[RM918]

Beck has been moving gradually towards libertarianism since he was on Headline News....i.e. before the media even acknowledged the tea parties or people like Ron Paul were legitimate. Beck might not agree with many on this board with foreign policy, but he would be an ally on domestic issues.

Beck is a smart man. He wants to make money. If you put a bunch of smart people in a room together they won't all agree and they will compete against each other. Instead of demonizing Beck, we should stand by him on issues we, as individuals, agree on philosophic principle and rationally argue our points in a polite way for things we disagree with.

Why? Because what this country needs more than anything else is a philosophic revolution. To understand the ideas of individualism and freedom. Personally attacking people who don't agree only alienates people. It just puts them on the defensive and reinforces the status quo.

I've seen this too much on this board the last couple pf years. The freedom movement is growing, we need to nurture it like we would a plant, not overwhelm it all at once.

Beck's purpose isn't 'gradual introduction' to the freedom movement, it's deceptive reintroduction to the neoconservative movement.

 

[TroySmith]

lol, almost every single of your sixteen posts is promoting glenn beck.

let's try not to be so obvious...

Mainly because I find the issue to be so counter-productive to people who want more liberty. It's ok to differ on opinions, but I think its unfortunate to have to call people "delusional" and so on. The fact is, Beck is the only person on TV telling his audience to read about the founders and the constitution, the progressives, the FED, etc. And people listen. Books he mentions often reach the top 10 in the charts. Is the man a neo-con in disguise, traitor to the tea party and liberty, delusional and all the other stuff spouted on the forum? I doubt it, but even if he is it's insignificant compared to the message and the idea of freedom, which, at least for now, he promotes.

It's like the presidential ranking debates here at the forum. While I personally find President Lincoln to have been awful, I wouldn't attack someone who defended him as ignorant/delusional/etc. Same principle applies.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Mainly because I find the issue to be so counter-productive to people who want more liberty. It's ok to differ on opinions, but I think its unfortunate to have to call people "delusional" and so on. The fact is, Beck is the only person on TV telling his audience to read about the founders and the constitution, the progressives, the FED, etc. And people listen. Books he mentions often reach the top 10 in the charts. Is the man a neo-con in disguise, traitor to the tea party and liberty, delusional and all the other stuff spouted on the forum? I doubt it, but even if he is it's insignificant compared to the message and the idea of freedom, which, at least for now, he promotes.

It's like the presidential ranking debates here at the forum. While I personally find President Lincoln to have been awful, I wouldn't attack someone who defended him as ignorant/delusional/etc. Same principle applies.

So explain why every time a Constitutionalist or a liberty candidate has a real shot at winning a race, he waits until the last minute and torpedoes their whole campaign, thus assuring that a Neocon or a big-government liberal Republican wins the nomination?

Doesn't sound like much of an "ally" to me...

 

[constituent]

Mainly because I find the issue to be so counter-productive to people who want more liberty. It's ok to differ on opinions, but I think its unfortunate to have to call people "delusional" and so on. The fact is, Beck is the only person on TV telling his audience to read about the founders and the constitution, the progressives, the FED, etc. And people listen. Books he mentions often reach the top 10 in the charts. Is the man a neo-con in disguise, traitor to the tea party and liberty, delusional and all the other stuff spouted on the forum? I doubt it, but even if he is it's insignificant compared to the message and the idea of freedom, which, at least for now, he promotes.

It's like the presidential ranking debates here at the forum. While I personally find President Lincoln to have been awful, I wouldn't attack someone who defended him as ignorant/delusional/etc. Same principle applies.

if I've read it once...

 

[constituent]

Doesn't sound like much of an "ally" to me...

Of course he's an ally. How's that expression go, "real friends stab you in the face?"

 

[TroySmith]

So explain why every time a Constitutionalist or a liberty candidate has a real shot at winning a race, he waits until the last minute and torpedoes their whole campaign, thus assuring that a Neocon or a big-government liberal Republican wins the nomination?

Doesn't sound like much of an "ally" to me...

I'm simply saying think about it.
1) What is the goal of libertarians/constitutionalists? To reduce to size of government via the drastic lowering (or complete removal of) the income tax, a completely transparent (and preferably abolished) fed, a non-interventionist foreign policy. I think we can all agree on that.

2) Beck has a large audience. His tv and radio show get great ratings. His books are best-sellers. The books he recommends often due well. I think we can also agree on that.

3) Given that, it's counter-productive to just label the man delusional and all of the other non-sense....EVEN IF HE IS! Why? Because he is at least nudging his audience into reading about Franklin/Jefferson/Washington and comparing them to TR/Wilson/Bush/Obama. It's HIS audience that is the most ripe for the liberty movement.

Place it in this scenario. A guy walks up to you at work and says "Hey, I was watching Glenn Beck and he recommended this book about Teddy Roosevelt so I bought it. Man what a great book...."

Now someone who responded "Eeeww, Glenn Beck is delusional! Don't watch him! He is just trying to trick you because he is a neo-con in disguise!" -- That person just lost the guy talking to him.

As to responding "Oh yeah, thats great! Hey if your interested in that maybe you should pick up this book by Murray Rothbard I just read...."


See the difference?

 

[pcosmar]

Of course he's an ally. How's that expression go, "real friends stab you in the face?"

Correction

Friends help you move

Real friends help you move bodies

 

[BlackTerrel]

Beck's purpose isn't 'gradual introduction' to the freedom movement, it's deceptive reintroduction to the neoconservative movement.

Don't you think that's a bit over sophisticated? It seems like such an overly complex and sophisticated strategy.

Let's switch it around. Let's say you're part of the freedom movement and you have a show on FNC. And your goal is to promote the freedom movement and get as many supporters as. Would you advocate freedom principles or would you pretend to be neoconservative as some sort of elaborate plot to win more people to your side.

For instance would you advocate the judge pretend to be neoconservative to win more people over?

Doesn't make that much sense. I've watched about 30 minutes of Beck in my life so I don't care for the guy either way. I just don't buy these overly complex conspiracy theories.

 

[robert9712000]

ok first off it annoys me that people always jump to the conclusion that the problem with a person is because of there faith and they never consider the possibility that they may have a warped interpretation of what they've say

I considered myself a a very devout believer in Christianity and have a 100percent different view of beck when it comes to our involvement in other countries affairs.I believe do unto others as i would have others do unto me and that means i wouldnt want another country meddling around with the U.S. ,by trying to manipulate it to there advantage so i wouldn't want the U.S. doing the same.

The problem with beck is easy.He values his success and money over what he believes.He only says what he thinks the people want to hear to get ratings,and i think hes a pro at it.I almost believed that he actually cared about what he spoke about.

The medina fiasco was a perfect example of what he really desires and that is, he wanted to make sure he still preached liberty to keep the ratings from that group of watchers and then he belittles her to appease the neocons so he keeps that group of viewers.

Beck is no different then a used car salesman,except he selling a different product

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm simply saying think about it.
1) What is the goal of libertarians/constitutionalists? To reduce to size of government via the drastic lowering (or complete removal of) the income tax, a completely transparent (and preferably abolished) fed, a non-interventionist foreign policy. I think we can all agree on that.

2) Beck has a large audience. His tv and radio show get great ratings. His books are best-sellers. The books he recommends often due well. I think we can also agree on that.

3) Given that, it's counter-productive to just label the man delusional and all of the other non-sense....EVEN IF HE IS! Why? Because he is at least nudging his audience into reading about Franklin/Jefferson/Washington and comparing them to TR/Wilson/Bush/Obama. It's HIS audience that is the most ripe for the liberty movement.

Place it in this scenario. A guy walks up to you at work and says "Hey, I was watching Glenn Beck and he recommended this book about Teddy Roosevelt so I bought it. Man what a great book...."

Now someone who responded "Eeeww, Glenn Beck is delusional! Don't watch him! He is just trying to trick you because he is a neo-con in disguise!" -- That person just lost the guy talking to him.

As to responding "Oh yeah, thats great! Hey if your interested in that maybe you should pick up this book by Murray Rothbard I just read...."


See the difference?

Well, absolutely. I've always advocated that approach. We can certainly use him like a tool (a plow, in this case) to prep the fields into which we plant and water the seeds.

However, he is NOT an ally. We can discuss him frankly on these boards even if we take a more moderate approach talking to his audience out in the real world. He has established a demonstrated pattern now of using the rhetoric of "our people" to get in good with Constitutionalists and liberty minded people, only to destroy our candidates and shill for the establishment guy in time to lose us the election, thus perpetuating the broken system.

Perhaps that is only because a fixed system will lose him money, who knows the reasoning behind it, but bottom line is that Beck is NOT our ally.

I do, and always have recommended the approach you define for reaching out to his audience, but do not yourself get fooled, Beck is not doing this for the reasons that he claims, or he would not destroy any and every liberty candidate that has a good shot at winning. I fully expect Beck to come up with something to slander Rand and Peter and Adam with as their primaries draw near. Watch for them yourself, and you will see. I am coming at this from experience at getting burned by him.

 

[mconder]

Why? Because what this country needs more than anything else is a philosophic revolution. To understand the ideas of individualism and freedom. Personally attacking people who don't agree only alienates people.

+1

 

[pcosmar]

The Root of Beck's Delusions...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The book Propaganda And Persuasion defines propaganda as "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."

 

[noxagol]

Don't you think that's a bit over sophisticated? It seems like such an overly complex and sophisticated strategy.

Let's switch it around. Let's say you're part of the freedom movement and you have a show on FNC. And your goal is to promote the freedom movement and get as many supporters as. Would you advocate freedom principles or would you pretend to be neoconservative as some sort of elaborate plot to win more people to your side.

For instance would you advocate the judge pretend to be neoconservative to win more people over?

Doesn't make that much sense. I've watched about 30 minutes of Beck in my life so I don't care for the guy either way. I just don't buy these overly complex conspiracy theories.

No. It is the strategy that has been played on the people for a long time now. First, you infiltrate and gain trust by appearing and acting in the manner they want. Once you are in a position of substantial power, you gradually move them towards your real agenda, slowly enough so that they don't realize they have pulled a complete 180 and the frog is boiled.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with you but I don't think 99.9% of the American Protestants know that. You gotta a lotta knowledge on this stuff; do you have a blog? I think more people need to read and take notice of Christians (if you are) that are well informed and speak without judging.

If 99.9% of American Protestants believed protecting Israel was some sacred duty then Obama would have lost by a landslide. Protestants make up 51% of the populations and Catholics make up another 24 percent. Just assuming that a pro abortion Obama managed to get 50% of the Catholic vote that's still 66% of the total vote going against him without him losing a single Jewish, muslum, Buddhist or atheist vote. Quit assuming radical "Left Behind" Christians make up the majority of protestantism. In fact some like John Hagee are barely recognizable as Christian.

 

[AuH20]

No. It is the strategy that has been played on the people for a long time now. First, you infiltrate and gain trust by appearing and acting in the manner they want. Once you are in a position of substantial power, you gradually move them towards your real agenda, slowly enough so that they don't realize they have pulled a complete 180 and the frog is boiled.

How much propaganda can you divert into the constitution? When you start reading the various articles and examining the Federalist Papers, there is a natural, logical progression that will not be impeded by the personal biases of one TV host. This is where I disagree with the Beck is a Trojan Horse theory, because he is introducing the masses to the true doctrine of revelation and personal liberty. There really isn't much to interpret or subject matter that you would consider malleable. This whole Neocon trojan horse theory is rooted in utter fantasy land, because the transcendental subject matter trumps any such perversion, even if Beck wanted it so. If I wanted to actually subvert a movement, the last document I would imbue upon the minds of my target audience would be the unadulterated tenets of the U.S. Constitution. For one, it's not an ambiguous document and secondly, it's largely focused upon protecting the individual from the tyranny of the state. I don't know about you, but Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have to be batshit crazy to be playing with an explosive powder keg of this size and stature. It's the equivalent to trying to round up 1000s of wild horses from the wilds of Wyoming and domesticating them with saddles in 6 months. It's not happening.

 

[Roonie]

How much propaganda can you divert into the constitution? When you start reading the various articles and examining the Federalist Papers, there is a natural, logical progression that will not be impeded by the personal biases of one TV host. This is where I disagree with the Beck is a Trojan Horse theory, because he is introducing the masses to the true doctrine of revelation and personal liberty.

True, but he is only spreading enlightenment to those who are already predisposed to believe what he says, i.e. conservatives.

What you're failing to take into account is the effect he has on the left's perception of libertarians. Beck is making everyone on the left think that we are all just batshit crazy. So when the day of reckoning comes and the gov. has finally crossed the last line and we pull out our guns . . . a whole half of the country thinks we are flipping out for no good reason.

The gov. can then justify putting down the rebellion, gun control, internment, etc.