Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Glenn Beck's hatred for Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not?

You're overstating things. The two have disagreed openly on the show; I recommend the clip linked to toward the end of page one of this thread. I've got my own misgivings about Yaron Brook going on the show, but it's not due to the idea of him appeasing Glenn Beck. I just have misgivings about ARI being associated with a show so emotional and unprofessional, and one which deals with news in the typical fire sale, crisis, infotainment manner. Of course, generally, every media outlet does this, but Beck takes it to a whole new level.

Edited by RussK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Never heard of him in my 33 years of living in Texas. Wow, he must be a force to be reckoned with. :P

Seriously, this thread is so very annoying. If you can't see the value of Yaron speaking honestly to millions of people across the nation, you're being ridiculous. If he were agreeing with Beck about everything, throwing his principles out the window, etc., it'd be different, but Yaron is consistent in his message and speaks up when he disagrees with Beck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see Yaron compromising his principles or Objectivism by being a guest on shows like Glenn Beck and earlier on The Rush Limbaugh Show and others like it run by conservatives who have a strong religious stance. Now, if Yaron said religion is OK, and that it is fine to be religious and fine to bring religion into politics, that would be a different issue. Or say if he were to speak on The 700 Club, which is totally dedicated to the spread of religion. I've made a point of listening to several Glenn Beck shows this week and the religion just isn't there all of the time. He isn't pushing religion, he's pushing conservatism; though, unfortunately religion plays a big role in most outspoken conservatives these says. I think so long as Yaron and other Objectivist speakers make their views known when religion is brought up, then no sanction is involved.

I certainly do not endorse everything written on these forums, and I make myself clear on those issues. I even disagree with the owners and moderators when appropriate. But so long as these forums remain open to reason, then I think it is OK for me to write here. If the primary membership was anti-reason, I would certainly have second thoughts about posting here, primarily because I would have to content with too much irrationalism. I don't think someone sanctions everything a forum owner represents by posting on their forum, not so long as the disagreements can be brought out, which Yaron does on those shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it continually amazing, and frankly frustrating, that in the context of what is going on in America, i.e., the precipitous collapse into socialist totalitarianism predicted continuously by Ayn Rand throughout her final two decades, Objectivists would be stuck in the mud again, arguing about the religious views of one of the major media's staunchest defenders of capitalism and individual freedom.

Even Rand, while recognizing the extreme shortfalls of the yes, religious, Right, recognized them as the best chance against the far greater evil of socialist and yes, atheistic Left. One does not rationally take from that that she supported religion; that she was "appeasing," to continue the misuse of that term, the "Religious" Right.

How much more clear examples must one see than the communist, explicitly atheist Soviet Union of the mid 20th century, and the capitalist, explicitly religious United States of the same era, to recognize that religious belief is a non-essential in the major philosophical struggle of our time?

If we get to a capitalist, individualist society, then, by all means, let's make the case against religion and mysticism. But for God's sake (snicker), can we agree that the one, single, blazing issue of free market capitalism v. centrally-controlled socialism is a dividing line by which we can rationally align ourselves for the coming philosophical conflict?

Beck has done more than anyone else in the major media to expose the extreme communist connections (see the firing of Van Jones), corrupt collectivist affiliates (see the firing of ACORN), and outright totalitarian actions (see the firing of Yosi Sargent) of the Obama Administration.

Each of these stories might have been confused with paranoia, until the subjects were fired. As they say, you're only paranoid if you're wrong, and so far, Beck's been right on a lot of issues that no one else had the, uh, paranoid delusions (?) to take on.

BTW, this defense of Beck is not a defense of his religious beliefs. It is a defense of his effectiveness in combating the widely unseen trend towards totalitarianism, perpetrated by both parties (and, yes, he does go after both, for those who get their Beck exposure in 0:34 Youtube snippets.), but especially and explicitly by this Administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My prediction, for what it is worth, is that Glenn Beck will say goodbye to Yaron anyhow. It's an issue of fundamental premises, and the more Glenn becomes religious and anti-atheist, the more he will find Yaron and other leading Objectivists repugnant. I've heard in the past that the other conservatives got pissed off at Yaron and others for no apparent reason, and just never asked them back, and I suspect it had to do with their pro-capitalist, pro-reason, and non-religious stance.

A man can be asked to make all types of decisions in his life, and some aren't very comfortable and no one can comfort those who don't know how to think in terms of principles. Basically, Glenn and others like him who are mis-integrated have an on-going war with themselves, because they are fundamentally at war with reality, which has no place for the super-natural. In my personal life, it has always been this way, even when I was more religious myself. I rarely have to tell someone to get out of my life, it rather works the other way with them leaving for no apparent reason that I can discern. That's not always the case, sometimes I know why they are booting me out, but I'm amazed at how often me taking a principled stance -- even one that is mistaken -- leads people to say goodbye to me.

I'm kind of in a personal bind myself, since I am unemployed and found someone who wants to hire me, potentially at twice what I was making before. But the rub is that I may have to do volunteer work for them a few days out of the month as they "give back to the community." I will probably be asked to paint someone's house or put in a foundry or any other helpful thing like that on my own time; and I don't want to do that at all. My time is precious -- especially my off time -- so if those are the conditions of employment I'm probably going to have to tell them NO. But I can't really decide if this is a Howard Roark moment or not, you know, as he turned down the commission for a bank they wanted to bastardize.

So, with Yaron and other leading Objectivists being as straight forward as they are, the issue will definitely come up, and if Glenn or someone else says, "You have to give me a sanction on altruism and mysticism," well, you can bet which way that conversation will be going. In other words, the issue will be settled one way or the other, most likely by Glenn no longer inviting him on his show any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake :- My point is that Mr Beck has created a platform for his Faith - that is not in the least surprising, of course - and any pretense at being open and impartial has disappeared.

He absolutely has this right, but in future anyone sharing this platform will be acceptable only so far as he panders to those views.

The platform of his studio is no longer a debate forum, but a vehicle for his 'message'. Therefore, just by appearing there, without strongly condemning that message, lends weight to the platform; which is sanctioning it, imo. Glenn Beck - again, imo - has been borrowing moral substance from Dr Brook and O'ism. More strength to him, but the critical contradiction between Reason and mysticism can no longer be avoided.

Agrippa :- I agree. There are bigger fish to fry. Personally, as well as by Rand's stated priority, I have usually found more common ground with moderate religionists, than I have with atheistic lefty Statists.

Today's priority is doubtlessly taking care of the political arena ( individual rights ), which can allow us to be at liberty enough to apply ourselves fully to the moral arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the more Glenn becomes religious and anti-atheist

Is there any evidence that he is becoming more religious? My take is that he's always been religious, which is why he sometimes says religious things. It's business as usual.

And I wouldn't even know what it means to be "anti-atheist." If someone told you that he thought many of the posters here were very "anti-non-Objectivist," what would you make of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake :- My point is that Mr Beck has created a platform for his Faith - that is not in the least surprising, of course - and any pretense at being open and impartial has disappeared.

He absolutely has this right, but in future anyone sharing this platform will be acceptable only so far as he panders to those views.

Sorry, your prediction of the future is just as fallacious an argument as the previous one, of guilt by association. Now your argument is that Brook should stay away, because you know for a fact that he will be forced to support religion.

What are you basing your predictions on? The total absence of such support in the past suggests the exact opposite of your prediction. My prediction of the future, based on past appearances, is this:

Yaron Brook will continue to go on Beck and likely other Fox shows, and no one will ever claim or imply that he supports religion. In the unlikely event that the subject of religion does come up, he will make it clear that Objectivism supports reason and opposes faith, and no one will ask him to not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wouldn't even know what it means to be "anti-atheist." If someone told you that he thought many of the posters here were very "anti-non-Objectivist," what would you make of it?

The point is that Glenn and others like him attribute the fall of this country to a lack in the belief in God -- and they come out and say that explicitly. In other words, to them, faith is an integral part of what makes this country great, and if you reject that, then you reject America. That is their stance. I definitely agree with Rand that insofar as they take that stance, they are handing reason over to the Liberals, of saying, in effect, that reason is on the side of the communists and the socialists, which is a very bad argument to make. If one thinks, even implicitly, that reason and science are on the side of collectivism, then one has given up on the side of individualism having anything to do with reason. And that is their downfall. If one can only support individualism by means of mysticism -- of the Christian soul with all the baggage that comes with it -- then there is no reason to become an individualist; being an individualist requires having faith. Of course, Objectivism rejects this outright, but the conservatives are not Objectivists. And they have no real intellectual base, which is why they turn to tradition and to the Constitution, instead of more fundamental arguments.

Is Glenn becoming more religious? I don't know, since I don't watch him often enough to say. But those bad premises, if unchecked, will lead him to becoming more and more religious -- as if religion has all of the answers. Glenn is a very mixed person, as are all of the modern conservatives, and it is difficult to predict which way he will go when confronted by an issue of reason versus mysticism. But so long as he believes God is the foundation of this country, he won't reject God in favor of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the morality of the Bible (altruism), and freedom, are in obvious contradiction. Whenever Glen Beck makes an even remotely philosophical argument, he is hurting the cause of freedom, not helping it.

In my view, he's hurting it even when he is focused on concrete issues, most of the time, because he's manipulative and dishonest, but at least in those cases he is partially right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUEdfq5o2bs

Did he just employ the Argument from Depravity?

It would be great if we could all be good, like Mother Teresa (and operate our economy that way) but since we're not, ie., since we are evil and selfish, all we deserve is the free market.

Am I right in that interpretation?

It sounds like some sort of strange variation on the idea of "original sin". We all suck, so we deserve Capitalism. Never heard that one before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be great if we could all be good, like Mother Teresa (and operate our economy that way) but since we're not, ie., since we are evil and selfish, all we deserve is the free market.

He didn't quite say that, but he is wrong to say that the pharmaceutical industry is feeding off of all of us. If you don't think the drugs are beneficial to you for the price, then don't take them. Of course, upholding Mother Teresa as a moral ideal contradicts capitalism. If she is the moral ideal then we should all give of ourselves until it hurts and not try to make a profit by it. This is clearly a contradiction to his "love of Ayn Rand" since one cannot love Mother Teresa and Ayn Rand's characters in the same mind without contradiction. As a free market guy, if he is one, he should celebrate the fact that the pharmaceutical industry exists and that they make a profit. All those doctors in the audience seemed to agree with him, but it was a short segment and not a lot of context was given. Altruists for capitalism is a contradiction, which is why the conservatives are morally disarmed when it comes to their supposed defense of capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't quite say that, but he is wrong to say that the pharmaceutical industry is feeding off of all of us.

Just a small (but important) correction: he didn't say the pharmaceutical industry is feeding off all of us. He said "the rest of the world" are all feeding off us (i.e., benefiting from our pharmaceutical companies).

And on a different note (not to you, Miovas): I don't see how what Beck says (and is saying here) is different from what Adam Smith would say. It may not be the best, philosophically, but look at what it has produced for those societies that tried to follow it even slightly. Adam Smith also believed that selflessness was the moral ideal but self interest was the necessary evil that produced all the goodies in the world. I can live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Have you seen Glenn Beck at all? You even said these words...

No, the morality of the Bible (altruism), and freedom, are in obvious contradiction. Whenever Glen Beck makes an even remotely philosophical argument, he is hurting the cause of freedom, not helping it.

In my view, he's hurting it even when he is focused on concrete issues, most of the time, because he's manipulative and dishonest, but at least in those cases he is partially right.

(Edit: See below)*

This man is trying to make a contradiction exist. Not even that, he is doing so while borrowing ideas from a philosophy that holds that such contradictions cannot exist. How can you not think Glenn Beck is not completely irrational? How can anyone, anyone post in this thread and not see that?

What does Brook have to gain by giving such a man the time of day? A man who takes the truth, wraps it up with smears and sells it to the masses with the glee and vigor of a televangelist.

An Ayn Rand-admiring friend of mine once said, "I'm Glenn Beck and you can put as many facts in front of me, but I still BELIEVE the opposite because I have a right to be stupid."

This isn't a matter of the his religious views. It's the fact that he using Objectivism and Rand to support his own arguments, and coming to the wrong conclusions and then spewing this to millions of people. This is also part of a much wider picture. That picture being the fact that Fox News is there to push an agenda. The conserative agenda. They invite numerous guests on there to make them look right. They invite Brook to give their arguements crendence and Micheal Moore to knock him down. This is all to legitimatize the conservatives views -- views that directly contradict Objectivist principles.

I do not want my views to be misunderstood and misrepresented. I do not wish for my causes to be held back and derailed. I do not wish to see the things precious to me and valuable to my life get trampled all over so a man and a political party can get enough people nodding their heads to give them all the powers they claim to be fighting against.

I won't have it.

You can have it if you want.

*(To clarify, I agree with Jake's words here, and I'm wondering why he didn't acknowledge Beck as being a completely irrational person before. The rest is a general post)

Edited by Sabre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have it if you want.

Ok. I'll take it. :)

All sides in this battle are irrational except ours. Stall for time, vote for divided government, aid the weaker factions. Stasis and obstruction are your friends, anyone who can help deliver that is an ad hoc ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*(To clarify, I agree with Jake's words here, and I'm wondering why he didn't acknowledge Beck as being a completely irrational person before. The rest is a general post)

Because I interpret the word completely to mean what the dictionary says it means. He's obviously not completely irrational. I know people who are far less rational who are still not completely irrational.

Glenn Beck isn't even completely irrational as far as philosophy goes. He's just wrong on enough counts to not be helpful as an opinion multiplier, on issues of philosophy (especially Politics and Ethics), unless of course he allows someone like Yaron Brook, and others (Penn Jillette goes on his show quite often, or at least used to on CNN, and I heard him make great points about appliyng the principles of freedom and even egoism).

But the fact that Beck isn't an intellectual of the highest caliber, so he shouldn't teach the rest of us about philosophy, does not mean he is some type of irrational creature, who can't be rational about anything. That is absurd.

If you consider everyone who disagrees with you on philosophical issues completely irrational, you must be a hermit, hiding in a hole somewhere. Surely you can't buy a piece of bread from someone completely irrational, or be next to a road on which completely irrational creatures are driving 2 ton vehicles that can go 150 mph.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

He, like most Conservative Christians, draw a false association between Atheism (not Objectivism) and and things like Liberalism and Socialism, Abortion, and general "immorality". I don't see anything implicitly directed at Objectivism in the video, the closest he came to referencing it was when talking about how Atheists fill the void of religion with "stuff."

Christianity remains the philosophical inverse of Objectivism on every front, so you are probably right about his hatred for Objectivism... although I doubt even he himself understands why his hatred exists. Really he hates godlessness, and feels that this is the cause of a lot of things he regards as evil... and since atheism is a shard of Objectivism, he would hate it by association.

The reason he can have Dr. Brook on the show and have a decent conversation with him is because Objectivism can deliver the argument FOR capitalism in a way that no other philosophy can, and since Glenn Beck wants to promote Capitalism they find plenty to agree about. Glenn Beck simply engages in the same compartmentalizing that all Christians must in order to hold contradictory views about ethics (altruism) and economics (capitalism).

I watch his show regularly, and find that I am becoming less and less capable of stomaching it. The struggle that Conservative Christians engage in on a daily basis is trying to mash together (instead of genuinely integrate) capitalism and god-belief (including the beliefs about the origins of rights). This is the intellectual equivalent of trying to shove a square block into a round hole. The attempt to encapsulate capitalism within a christian framework will never work because the ethics that capitalism depends on is the opposite of christian Altruism, and this will absolutely sabotage any ideological movements (such as the tea-parties) from being anything beneficial in the long term.

I do believe that it is positive that he is generating a resistance to the absurd policies coming out of the Obama white house, specifically on issues concerning environmentalism (cap'n'trade) and healthcare. These bills (if passed) I believe would be the tipping point that spirals the country into a very bloody era of American history.

Edited by Alone
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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