Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Glenn Beck's hatred for Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I find this issue very interesting, and it relates to why I put down my novel and will have to do a major re-write if I ever publish it. I have a guy on a ship saying Poseidon is with you / against you for a lot of passages. He is helpful to the hero, in that the Poseidon guy is the captain of a ship that the hero needs to do his work. But, after a while, and stepping back from the insides of the novel and conflicts, I more fully realized that he was being completely arbitrary, and even though the hero confronts him about it time after time, he doesn't make any headway. And it did come down to the issue of dealing with religious people. Past a certain point, of that is all they have to say, then it's not worth pursuing; because there is no rationality there. So, part of the question is this: Is there any rationality in Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other like them; or are they just religious nuts? Many of you might say they are just religious nuts, but there is more rationality mixed in there despite from the religiosity. The religiosity aggravates me, because it is arbitrary. But it is not as if these people are some monk cast away in the desert and doesn't know anything about what it means to be civilized and to have a rational conversation. They are mis-integrated, and need to become more integrated; that's for sure. But are they blatantly irrational for the whole show? I don't think so, and I do think Rush and Glenn are good news analysts. However, so long as the Conservatives stick with religion and to that extent, we certainly have to choose our allies well -- specifically on ad hoc grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just saw the video.

Not one word about Objectivists. A lot of words about atheists. And frankly, 99% of the time, atheists have a lot of problems--they *do* lead empty lives or worship the government as he accuses them of doing. *Those* atheists I don't have a problem with him condemning.

He is wrong to generalize to *all* atheists; he *knows* better because he knows Yaron Brook. And he is wrong to hold out religion as the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was Peikoff (I could be wrong, I can't remember) who answered once a question about using existing movements / organizations to promote Objectivism.

Peikoff has said things about this subject, yes, and I agree that it's a bad idea to try to use, say, the Libertarian Party as a front for pushing Objectivist goals because it wouldn't work in the long run. Joining a *movement* or *organization* is a bad idea unless it's an ad-hoc organization.

But how is Glenn Beck a *movement* or *organization*? He's *one guy*. There's nothing wrong with accepting invitations from individual pundits to discuss with them. It'd be wrong for Yaron Brook to appear at, say, a Republican caucus or a libertarian party meeting, but there's nothing wrong with addressing Republicans or Libertarians. You just have to be aware of the program purpose of the specific function you're attending. If you're invited to speak on free market health care at a pro-life function, you should decline because you'd be granting the pro-life aspect of the function your sanction. You should probably also decline if some of the invited speakers intend to speak on being pro-life (assuming you know in advance). But if that's not the topic or on the agenda even if you know some of the speakers ARE pro-life, speaking is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Beck is religious? Man, I would never have guessed that! That totally changes my opinion of him! </sarcasm>

I must say that I did find your post instructive, though: I learned that the extent and intensity of your hatred for Glenn Beck was greater than I ever would have imagined. To be sure, there are many things that I passionately hate myself; for example, I hate dogs, and I mean really hate them, especially when they bark, but somehow it's never crossed my mind to go on a pets forum and say things like "Man's best friend, THIS? Yeah, right!"

And I found that creepy footage of children singing hymns to Obama an eye-opener, too. So yes, thanks for the instructive post, but if your agenda is to persuade people to support the DNC, you have pretty much shot yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'd like to make a few points:

1. I don't find it wrong that Yaron appears on Beck's show. When Yaron is on, he is concise and to the point. He does not make compromises to Beck. He agrees with a point Beck has made, and explains why he agrees. I wouldn't care if an Objectivist intellectual appeared on the Keith Olbermann show and even agreed with some point that windbag made. An appearance is not a sanction, and Yaron has disagreed with Beck plenty. However, after THIS display I would hope the ARI would be wary to send anyone to that show until Glenn either retracts or clarifies. It is no secret Glenn is a religious man, and even a non-mainstream religion (Mormonism). What was not 100% clear was his absolute hatred for atheism, categorically it seems. Not only is atheism the incorrect and immoral position, but it is the fountainhead (no pun intended) of America's problems.

2. To Steve, who are these 99% of atheists you are generalizing about? Have you met them? I know atheists make up a very small portion of this society, and the world population, but it's pretty unlikely you met them all. Most of the actual, intellectually active atheists I have known have been rather decent people. They were not hedonists or communists. They were good people, just like many religious people are in fact good people. The difference is, with atheists, from that single aspect about them, you can tell one thing: they don't believe in any deity. With Christians, Muslims, Jews you can tell PLENTY of things, at least about their personal beliefs. So, to say 99% of atheists are condemnable seems like a statement that demands proof. I've noticed a lot of positive trends in the world of atheism, actually, however filled with mistakes and errors. Those mistakes and errors certainly do not rival the Conservatives.

3. About the creepy footage of children singing hymns about Obama. I agree, super creepy and totally immoral. Also, a religious activity I would say. Beck seems to be facing a contradiction. These children are being indoctrinated to worship a god-like figure. Beck should support them, should give those little bastards some structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw the video.

Not one word about Objectivists. A lot of words about atheists. And frankly, 99% of the time, atheists have a lot of problems

What possible link could the absence of a belief in the magical sky father have to do with any problems? What if I replaced Objectivism with atheis in your sentece?

I guarantee you that 99% of Objectivists have problems, so someone railing against Objectivists must have a point, right?

If atheists have problems, they are in no way related to their atheism-their lack of belief in God. In fact, in a person with problems, his atheism is one thing that is positive. Without his atheism, he would be irrational in one more aspect of his life.

To attack someone for their atheism or any other aspect of a them that is good is the definitely a pure evil choice. The fact that he attributes irrational aspects of some poople's belief systems to their lack of belief in God makes it more evil, not something that is redeeming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the opportunity to be part of a conversation with the person who set up the Beck appearances for Yaron Brook. The point was that the Beck program is an opinion program on a news channel. It was understood that Beck would know that Yaron would speak his mind and represent Objectivism and ARI.

This is not the 700 Club, but a show on a major cable network. There is no reason to think that appearing on the show implies any endorsement of the positions of any other person who appears on that show, including the host. The only recognition that appearing on a show implies is that the guest expects that there will be viewers.

I expect that Yaron doesn’t actually care if Beck agrees with him or even likes him. Yaron just wants the opportunity to present his ideas. If he had several different options, Beck might not be the first choice, but I expect that the criteria would include the size of the audience, not their acceptance of him.

Just what show could he go today that isn’t dominated by crazy religious or crazy Obama people or maybe people too afraid to express their distain for both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one matures in wisdom, I think one discovers that the most important thing in choosing one's associations or alliances is really their general sense of life rather than the specifics of each of their concrete ideas or beliefs. Do they approach the problems of life rationally? Do they have personal integrity? Do they value the magnificent achievements of science and architecture and (big) business, etc, in the free world? Are they passionate about life, and love? And so on. Their sense of life.

Anyone who would like Yaron Brook enough to want him on his show - and in his magazine, by the way - would count as sufficiently rational in my books to deserve a pretty positive judgment.

More power to Glenn Beck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty convincing appeal, blackdiamond. Yes, religionists can be very rational right up to the point of the ultimate irrationality - altruism, faith, and supernaturalism.

Beck is a strong advocate of liberty, and this is the most immediate challenge facing the U.S., and the rest of us elsewhere. It looks as though he has a genuine desire to bring the morality of O'ism/Capitalism to bear on a 'crusade' against a common enemy.

There was (a few months back) an appeal on this forum from an influential Mormon who similarly professed to admire the bulk of Objectivism, and suggested basically that we bury our differences in the greater interest of your nation.

I was one of the few who entertained the idea, as an 'arms-length' alliance -- temporarily, with clear cut separation between the two parties -- simply because of the religious Capitalists' sheer weight of numbers.

I had misgivings about the pragmatism involved, ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend'), but decided it was superseded by the huge threat we are facing.

So where was the support for this initiative at that time?

Still, after Mr Beck turned his T.V. studio into a pulpit, it must become questionable for Dr Brook to share it with him.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the opportunity to be part of a conversation with the person who set up the Beck appearances for Yaron Brook. The point was that the Beck program is an opinion program on a news channel. It was understood that Beck would know that Yaron would speak his mind and represent Objectivism and ARI.

This is not the 700 Club, but a show on a major cable network. There is no reason to think that appearing on the show implies any endorsement of the positions of any other person who appears on that show, including the host. The only recognition that appearing on a show implies is that the guest expects that there will be viewers.

I expect that Yaron doesn’t actually care if Beck agrees with him or even likes him. Yaron just wants the opportunity to present his ideas. If he had several different options, Beck might not be the first choice, but I expect that the criteria would include the size of the audience, not their acceptance of him.

Just what show could he go today that isn’t dominated by crazy religious or crazy Obama people or maybe people too afraid to express their distain for both?

All great points. I despise Glenn Beck with a passion, as well as the news media in general. Besides a few exceptions, I don't watch Beck, and this also includes when Yaron attends the show. Yet, I understand the benefits of speakers using the show to put out their message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was not 100% clear was his absolute hatred for atheism, categorically it seems.

He didn't primarily express an emotion ("hatred") in the segment, but rather an argument. The argument is fatally wrong, but the premise behind it is shared by a VAST majority of American conservatives and moderates, which is why I didn't find it the least surprising that Beck should say it. What we need to do is educate people about why the premise is wrong, not accuse them of implicitly hating Objectivism.

About the creepy footage of children singing hymns about Obama. I agree, super creepy and totally immoral. Also, a religious activity I would say. Beck seems to be facing a contradiction. These children are being indoctrinated to worship a god-like figure. Beck should support them, should give those little bastards some structure.

Last evening, I bought a meal in a McDonald's and sat down to eat. There was a couple sitting next to me, and the girl kept turning her head towards me and even shouted out some terms of endearment in my direction. A romantic activity, I would say. But her male companion didn't seem to support it; in fact, he told her to "Look at me when you're talking to me!" and shouted out a not-so-endearing term in my direction. That was clearly a contradiction on his part; if he loved the girl, he should have supported us, I could have satisfied her real good!

I am not much of an expert on any religion, but "Our God is a jealous God" is pretty much Judeo-Christianity 101. Beck thinks worshipping God is good and worshipping Obama is evil; one of these premises is false and the other is true, but there is no direct contradiction between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Beck is the antithesis of libertarianism. I'd like to point this out to anyone who thinks he's really such.

Yeah I would just like to point out that Glenn Beck was all for socialism prior to November 2008.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909210037

He also called Ron Paul and his supporters a "crank," "un-patriotic," "un-American," "a domestic threat" and generally lambasted him/them for being against President Bush.

Now he's a "libertarian." Uh huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was (a few months back) an appeal on this forum from an influential Mormon who similarly professed to admire the bulk of Objectivism, and suggested basically that we bury our differences in the greater interest of your nation.

I was one of the few who entertained the idea, as an 'arms-length' alliance -- temporarily, with clear cut separation between the two parties -- simply because of the religious Capitalists' sheer weight of numbers.

I had misgivings about the pragmatism involved, ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend'), but decided it was superseded by the huge threat we are facing.

So where was the support for this initiative at that time?

This is the dilemma that faces and will continue to face Objectivists for the foreseeable future under the current 2 party system. There won't be a Democrat or a Republican with whom most Objectivists can agree on every issue. That being the case we have a couple of choices. One can become completely divorced from politics and thus have no impact on the process, or one can choose sides and switch sides in such a way that our issues are more or less supported and the damage is more or less minimized.

I choose the second option, and I support/vote for the party that tends to best reflect my views on the most important issues of the day. I also choose to give my support to candidates where I think that their election will tend to cause gridlock and nothing will happen. If that means forming a temporary alliance with someone who is outwardly religious in order to help defeat socialized medicine (for example), then forming that alliance is a moral political decision. It doesn't mean that I share the religionist's views on religion, it simply means that we are both opposed to socialized healthcare.

Right now I believe that Objectivists involved in American politics should be focused on delaying the damage while we fight the long-term philosophical battles needed to change the culture. That won't happen quickly, so holding the socialists and the religionists at bay while we make progress on the philosophical front should be our primary political goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was (a few months back) an appeal on this forum from an influential Mormon who similarly professed to admire the bulk of Objectivism, and suggested basically that we bury our differences in the greater interest of your nation. I was one of the few who entertained the idea, as an 'arms-length' alliance -- temporarily, with clear cut separation between the two parties -- simply because of the religious Capitalists' sheer weight of numbers. I had misgivings about the pragmatism involved, ('the enemy of my enemy is my friend'), but decided it was superseded by the huge threat we are facing.

So where was the support for this initiative at that time?

Cooperation with others is permitted and encouraged on particular issues. If you have your own reasons to vote on a certain issue, and someone else has a different reason, you can both cooperate on that issue without granting a general sanction. That mormon wanted an alliance on principle, a general sanction. Totally different situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Beck is the antithesis of libertarianism. I'd like to point this out to anyone who thinks he's really such.

The only thing I can imagine is close to being the antithesis of libertarianism would be an ideology that is consistent and based on well thought out principles. Like Objectivism.

I don't think Glen Beck is anything like that, he is very much consistent with various libertarian positions on plenty of issues, uses various libertarian catch-phrases and arguments his positions in a similar manner.

The fact that he's not a libertarian on national defense, and hates Ron Paul for being an isolationist, defeatist and a pacifist, is actually a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing *I'm* worried about is the view of Rand and Objectivism that people new to the ideas will get from Beck. Agree or disagree with Beck, he is fastly becoming the laughingstock of the nation. He is generally viewed as a deranged & paranoid clown. I'm worried him advocating Rand will do damage to her reputation, and the various intellectuals and movements promoting her ideas.

It's like this -- Person A doesn't like Beck, thinks Beck is idiotic. Person A hears Beck talk about Ayn Rand. Person A has never heard of Ayn Rand. Person A assumes Ayn Rand is for idiots since Beck advocates Ayn Rand. Person A disagrees with Rand because Person A disagrees with Beck, having never actually read Rand's ideas and assuming they are one and the same.

Now a mental barrier has been created, because of that first impression. A mental barrier that makes it more difficult for an Objectivist to get their views across because the only thing Person A is hearing is something similar to what the person they despise is saying. People think like this because it's a heuristic. It's easier that way. It also seems very prevalent in politics as well. (Maybe because very little individual thinking is going on there? Different story!)

It can go the other way around too -- Person B loves Beck. Person B hears Beck talk about Ayn Rand. Person B has never heard of Ayn Rand. Person B assumes since Beck likes Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand must be a good thing. Person B agress with Rand because Person B agrees with Beck, having never actually read Rand's ideas and assuming they are one and the same.

At this point you're probably wanting to dismiss this as over-generalizing. I would too, had I not noticed this type of thinking on as large of a scale as I have. You may not like it, but it's definitely there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I found that creepy footage of children singing hymns to Obama an eye-opener, too.

I find it suspicious that the video footage isn't cited in anyway. Where did this stuff come from? I seriously wonder if the "Cult of Obama" is just an invention of people who oppose Obama as a way to gain support. Beck is just too paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Not PC" blog points out that

:)

Back to today, at some stage it might make sense for ARI to create some material that specifically addresses why Beck and folks like him are wrong, naming these current folks. Perhaps Beck might even take it an an opportunity for debate, which will further clarify the Objectivist position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing *I'm* worried about is the view of Rand and Objectivism that people new to the ideas will get from Beck. Agree or disagree with Beck, he is fastly becoming the laughingstock of the nation. He is generally viewed as a deranged & paranoid clown. I'm worried him advocating Rand will do damage to her reputation, and the various intellectuals and movements promoting her ideas.

It's like this -- Person A doesn't like Beck, thinks Beck is idiotic. Person A hears Beck talk about Ayn Rand. Person A has never heard of Ayn Rand. Person A assumes Ayn Rand is for idiots since Beck advocates Ayn Rand. Person A disagrees with Rand because Person A disagrees with Beck, having never actually read Rand's ideas and assuming they are one and the same.

Actually, it's like this: person A disagrees with Liberal propaganda, the Liberal media attacks and ridicules person A. Right now, they're doing it to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, but Ayn Rand would get the same exact treatment if she was alive and had a TV show. That does not make Glenn Beck the laughing stock of the nation, and he most definitely isn't the laughing stock of the people who see Brook on his show. (people who, by the way, far outnumber the audience that hears about Glenn Beck on MSNBC-which is the only major outlet obsessed with attacking FOX, as far as I can tell)

And no, they're not really attacking Beck or Rush Limbaugh on what they're wrong about, or because of the things they're say that are wrong: religion, factual errors or lies, or collectivism. They are attacking them for all the things they're right about, namely criticism of Obama, multiculturalism, environmentalism and socialism.

What Objectivists need to do is appear on as many outlets as possible, and tell people about the existence of an ideology that is different from both sides. Unfortunately, the only people that tolerate disagreement are non-Liberals, which are a minority in the media.

I find it suspicious that the video footage isn't cited in anyway. Where did this stuff come from? I seriously wonder if the "Cult of Obama" is just an invention of people who oppose Obama as a way to gain support. Beck is just too paranoid.

I've seen it, along with plenty of other evidence of some Liberals attempting to create the cult of Obama. It doesn't look like it's gonna work, in fact he looks more and more like the next Carter, but they are still trying.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...