Is that why he keeps having Yaron Brook back on his show?
Paranoia can destroya.
Maybe he’ll watch Michael Moore’s new movie and realize that capitalism is incompatible with Christianity. Can two wrongs make a right? I’m not holding my breath.
Well, at some point that conflict is going to come to a head…one cannot love Ayn Rand and mysticism in the same person without there being an explosion of differences. Some Conservatives manage to do it for a while – such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – but so long as they ask what will fill the void then they will be off track. Man’s spiritualism comes from his own mind, his own consciousness, and there is no need to be subservient to some higher power other than existence; though, of course, this isn’t a personal savior, at least not in the Christian sense. A healthy respect for reason and reality is all a man needs, so it is not God or Country that we need to bow down to, but rather stand up proudly and individualistically with reason and reality on our side.
The contradiction is theirs, and it plays out over time, such that they don’t give good reasons for individual rights. I still think the relationship between a Conservative and an Objectivist can only be one of ad hoc – of particular things they want to accomplish; because the two cannot blend in the same mind, let alone be integrated.
Yuck. I feel dirty just watching that crap.
This clarifies for me the reason that the ARI considered the Republican Party the greater of two evils – something that surprised me in the past. (But, considering Obama, I’m still not sure…)
I now have another bone to pick :- should a man of Yaron Brook’s stature be lending Beck any credibility by appearing on his shows ?
It hate to say it but I told you so.
It hate to say it but I told you so.
I take that back, I LOVE to say it.
I now have another bone to pick :- should a man of Yaron Brook’s stature be lending Beck any credibility by appearing on his shows ?
No.
the Obama videos are pretty awful though.
Glenn Beck is an actor, he changes his philosophy whenever it fits him in order to capture as much as audience as possible.
Glenn Beck is an actor, he changes his philosophy whenever it fits him in order to capture as much as audience as possible.
He is a spineless scumbag libertard with no consistent philosophy you mean? Yes, I agree.
Why does that video surprise anyone and how does it change anything?
I now have another bone to pick :- should a man of Yaron Brook’s stature be lending Beck any credibility by appearing on his shows ?
Should he be writing articles in the New York Times? Should he appear on CNBC? Should he be speaking at panel discussions with libertarians and conservatives? Should he be speaking on conservative or libertarian television shows like Pajamas Media and Fox’s Freedom Watch? Should he be speaking at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y? Should he just speak only at places where people strictly agree with him? Should he make everyone he speaks to sign a contact that states the must agree with him on everything before he will talk to them?
Well, he could clearly say that he disagrees with Beck. Not because he is morally obliged to do but because it would be easier for the casual listener / reader to find out where both stand. The goal should be to direct people to Objectivism and not to compromise to get some free air time.
Well, he could clearly say that he disagrees with Beck. Not because he is morally obliged to do but because it would be easier for the casual listener / reader to find out where both stand. The goal should be to direct people to Objectivism and not to compromise to get some free air time.
So you’re saying he hasn’t disagreed with Beck and he compromises with him?
What’s this then?
Should he be writing articles in the New York Times? Should he appear on CNBC? Should he be speaking at panel discussions with libertarians and conservatives? Should he be speaking on conservative or libertarian television shows like Pajamas Media and Fox’s Freedom Watch? Should he be speaking at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y? Should he just speak only at places where people strictly agree with him? Should he make everyone he speaks to sign a contact that states the must agree with him on everything before he will talk to them?
Up until now, I would agree with you. Spreading the message of Objectivism right under the noses of a mixed bag of media forums, all of whom have mixed premises one way or another, has been very effective for the ARI. Where else do they go, after all ?
The few Glenn Beck/ Dr Brook shows that I have viewed appeared relaxed affairs, with Beck being slightly patronising, but at least accomodating of Yaron Brook’s incisive input.
However, now that he (Beck) has nailed his colours to the mast with this incredible rant, I will bet that the ARI are reconsidering the cost.
Up until now, I would agree with you. Spreading the message of Objectivism right under the noses of a mixed bag of media forums, all of whom have mixed premises one way or another, has been very effective for the ARI. Where else do they go, after all ?
The few Glenn Beck/ Dr Brook shows that I have viewed appeared relaxed affairs, with Beck being slightly patronising, but at least accomodating of Yaron Brook’s incisive input.
However, now that he (Beck) has nailed his colours to the mast with this incredible rant, I will bet that the ARI are reconsidering the cost.
It’s not like ARI didn’t know what Beck’s views were and they just found out in the “incredible rant” in the OP: Beck has held these beliefs since the beginning of his show and has expressed them. I have known about Beck’s views, I can’t talk for anyone else, but at least I have known about them much prior to his ranting in the OP’s video.
I know that Dr. Brook has known Becks views as evidenced to the fact that in the video I posted we learn that Yaron has met in Glenn’s office prior, as well has “having lunch together” whether they discussed their disagreements.
Why don’t you people decide what it is you exactly want Yaron to say instead of what he says, then post it here, or send it to him; but I really don’t understand this “lending credibility to” and “Talking to someone = sanction of X, Y, Z” comments. Is there any similarity between Yaron Brook and David Kelley?
Here’s the issue: If someone is providing you with a forum, how wary should one be of the forum? I think the disagreements between Yaron and Glenn Beck are out there in the open, and Glenn is giving Yaron a big sanction, not so much the other way around. Me writing here is more the forum giving me a sanction than the forum owners / moderators getting a sanction from me. It goes both ways, of course, but Glenn Beck is the one with the contradiction. Yaron does not have to counter everything Glenn says, so long as he makes his position clear, which he has been doing. Basically, Glenn is being arbitrary to say that God wants us to be productive, and that God is pro-reason, and that God wants us to be free. The militant Islamics believe otherwise, and there is not way to resolve that issue, since there is no God or Allah, and no real facts to point to in one sides favor or the other. But so long as Glenn Beck and other Conservatives voice agreements with individual rights, I see no harm in Yaron being a guest. He is a guest, after all, and not a co-host. They certain don’t agree all the way on what individual rights are; most Conservatives are against a whole host of individual rights, so they don’t understand the concept. If Yaron or other Objectivists being on the show can help to clarify those points, it’s all the better.
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.