Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Glenn Beck's hatred for Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

Again, he justifies the war on drugs, he thinks the universe will explode (I'm not exaggerating here) if gays can get married (this is not a libertarian view. a libertarian view on marriage is that the gov't should not define it, straight or gay), and he seems to be in it for the economic freedom and tax reform, whereas Bill Maher seems to be in it for the pot and gay marriage.

And actually, as far as I know, libertarians are in favor of a national defense. But at the same time, we value self-defense before national defense. Isolationism is by no means a bad concept, if not done to an extreme. War does not generate wealth or economic return.

As for Objectivism being the antithesis of libertarianism... ehehe. Still trying to figure that one out, for quite a while. =P

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just tracking the continuing failing mental health of that darling of conservatism

“I truly fear the groundwork — this is so far beyond Obama, I want to do a special on who’s on the other end of the side of the BlackBerry?, who’s on the other end of the BlackBerry?... This is bigger than Obama.... I fear an event, I fear a Reichstag moment, God forbid another 9/11, something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced. God help us all.”

-Glenn Beck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tracking the continuing failing mental health of that darling of conservatism

“I truly fear the groundwork — this is so far beyond Obama, I want to do a special on who’s on the other end of the side of the BlackBerry?, who’s on the other end of the BlackBerry?... This is bigger than Obama.... I fear an event, I fear a Reichstag moment, God forbid another 9/11, something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced. God help us all.”

-Glenn Beck

He is right here. When things are going well and people are comfortable things do not really shift drastically. If you want a societal shift, if you want to move boundaries, you need a crisis thus the saying "Never let a good crisis go to waste..." You certainly have seen it recently with what happened to your banking system. Also this IS far beyond Obama. I don't think his reaction to what is happening is unfounded. Perhaps he is sometimes over the top but he is right when he says that there are reasons to be concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a regular practice in other countries, why not in the US as well?

If you want to attack a certain group then disguise yourself as a member and cause trouble. Then the government has a reason to move in. Think for example of Operation Gladio against communist groups in Europe during the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lot of things I wouldn't put past this crew that is currently in office. However, until there is evidence of this sort of a plot, I think that idle speculation about whether or not it could occur is a complete waste of time and makes people look paranoid.

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. His answer was that one should create one's own media outlet / organization and not join existing movements.

Don't you think Brook making a name for himself, ARI and O'ism on shows like Beck's open the door that kind of opportunity? ARI doesn't have the funds to start its own cable channel, radio station, etc. They can use programs like Beck's to draw attention to themselves and be seen by a larger audience. Once there is demand for a product (an O'ist TV show/channel or radio station), someone will put up enough money to get it started.

He is insinuating the government could be planning an internal attack, and use that to silence dissidents. This is stuff best left to radio stations in Texas.

Nice cheap shot at Texas. <_< Furthermore, I lived in Texas before, during and after 9/11 and the conspiracy theories were not well-received and rarely discussed.

I think the title of this thread shows a lack of objectivity.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously/ How many O'ists were giving conspiracy arguments any recognition of soundness during the Bush years? This is just silly.

Kelly, my comment about Texas was about Alex Jones, who is based in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is insinuating the government could be planning an internal attack, and use that to silence dissidents. This is stuff best left to radio stations in Texas.

Not to defend Glenn Beck (I wouldn't), but in the quote you provided, the speaker is insinuating that the government could take advantage of another 9/11, and "power will be seized and voices will be silenced" in the process. He is not insinuating that the gov. is planning an internal attack, nor is he claiming to have any special knowledge. He is simply expressing fears, but not fears of the government committing an attack, only fears that the people in power will take advantage, if there is another attack.

Which is a real possibility, after 9/11 various bureaucrats and politicians did take advantage of the attacks to increase their power in small and not so small ways, and Obama has shown that he is much more willing to disregard liberty than Bush was. (including on the issue of the rights of terror suspects, where the language he uses is far less mindful of the principles of freedom than Bush's speeches)

Then there's the precedent set by Britain, where anti terror laws are already routinely used to spy on people who cheat the welfare state or leave dog doodies on the sidewalks.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you make of this "Operation Northwoods" thing?

http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwo...php?image=01#tt

I think it is funny how there were no terrorist attacks on US soil, blamed on Cuba, committed by anyone. Not by Cuba, and not by the US government.

What we do have are countless terrorist attacks committed by and blamed on the same Islamists this website is trying to say are helpless victims of Zionist conspiracies.

So who, what, where? And why are you linking to antisemitic conspiracy websites in the first place? Why am I supposed to take seriously some fake JPEG claiming to be a picture of unclassified documents? I'm sure Rockefeller's speech to the Illuminati is somewhere on this site, between this and proof that the Pentagon was hit by missiles.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This begs the question though, what kind of a 'name' is he creating for himself by this association?

People have tried to suggest all sorts of versions of what kind of name he's creating for himself, in this thread, and the only one that makes any sense is that he's creating a name that is based on the things that he says.

Since what he is saying is right, he is creating a good name for himself and Objectivism. Unless you have a new reason to doubt that, in which case you should mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This begs the question though, what kind of a 'name' is he creating for himself by this association?

Yaron Brook should stay away from Glenn Beck because you are afraid other people will commit the fallacy of guilt by association?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This begs the question though, what kind of a 'name' is he creating for himself by this association?

Bob Bidinotto has been on the Thom Hartman show in the past. When I heard him, he was plugged as an Objectivist. Bob expressed himself clearly and never backed down as Hartman started to disagree and spout the normal leftist drivel. These kinds of appearances don't reflect negatively on Objectivism, in fact they're a huge positive because they advertise the philosophy and demonstrate a clear difference between Objectivism and all of the other trash out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaron Brook should stay away from Glenn Beck because you are afraid other people will commit the fallacy of guilt by association?

Because it would be knowingly dealing with and associating with a completely irrational person. I mean is Glenn Beck really the *best* platform to talk about Objectivism publicly? Especially when Glenn Beck has such a strong atheist-phobia/hatred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it would be knowingly dealing with and associating with a completely irrational person.

And calling someone "a completely irrational person", for no good reason, is rational?

I mean is Glenn Beck really the *best* platform to talk about Objectivism publicly?

What about arguing by constructing obvious strawmen? Is that rational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean is Glenn Beck really the *best* platform to talk about Objectivism publicly?

It may not be the *best* platform, but I don't think that ABC News is going to give Peter Jenning's job to Dr. Brook any time soon, nor does Jay Leno seem to be looking for a sidekick.

Edited by gags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also see Yaron Brook on PJTV, and also see that in "pop culture" Objectivism is often mistakenly associated with the right.

I remember when Leonard Peikoff declared (in addition to OP) that the Right was the most dangerous threat to America, the Republicans were in power. Now that the big void of O is in power we see the Institute "siding" on the short term with the opposition. It might be policy or strategy, but as stated above, who else would invite him? Bill Maher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaron Brook should stay away from Glenn Beck because you are afraid other people will commit the fallacy of guilt by association?

No, he should stay away from Beck because his agreement on political issues with Beck will actually render him guilty by association.

EDIT: Guilty of what you may ask? My answer is political appeasement of the Right.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have tried to suggest all sorts of versions of what kind of name he's creating for himself, in this thread, and the only one that makes any sense is that he's creating a name that is based on the things that he says.

So the podium from which he speak does not matter at all, as long as he speaks the truth? So much for the Peikoff/Kelly debate then, I didn't know we could just drop the whole context. Thanks. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the podium from which he speak does not matter at all, as long as he speaks the truth? So much for the Peikoff/Kelly debate then, I didn't know we could just drop the whole context. Thanks. <_<

I agree, but maybe Mr Brook values wide public exposure more than a non biding association with moderate conservatives; and trusts the audience's judgment.

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...