How many on here rely on Beck for news and fall in line with what he says??
I watched a portion of Beck for the first time last night. I do not want to offend anybody, but I cannot believe anybody can rely on him for actual, fact-based news.
First, he called George Bernard Shaw a monster. Shaw, the famous playwright and co-founder the London School of Economics, was a famous socialist. He also supported eugenics, which is the practice of weeding out the weak links of the gene pool. I do not support eugenics at all. But, Shaw never once murdered anybody, never did he advocate using it for any racial or religious persecution.
But what does Beck convey to his audience? That Shaw was the same as Adolph Hitler. He totally disregarded all the positive things Shaw advocated, like keeping the middle/lower class safe from the upper class (Shaw's most attacked subject was protecting the working class from the elites, something you think a guy who claims to be of the people to support), equality for all, all his great literary works and the London School of Economics, etc...
How can anyone support a person who cannot differentiate between ideals and practice?
Then, he proceeds to talk about Fabian Society, a socialist group who was very influential in Europe. (Beck says they were very big in Australia, England, AND Europe, apparently England is no longer a European country) He describes how the Fabians got into power, that they used gradualist ideals to infiltrate society rather than a revolution. He accused many people in the US of being undercover socialists, saying they were a Fabian Society redux.
He claimed Hilary Clinton was a socialist because she referred to herself as a Progressive. His line of thought was that because during the early 20th century, when Progressivism (which was not socialist anyway, they were center-left leaning parties who included Teddy Roosevelt ) was on the rise in the US. No mention of the fact that the Progressive Party in the United States was not socialist, that it was liberal by today's standards. Democracy was a HUGE part of the Progressive moment in the United States, as they were big proponents of the common citizen being more involved in politics. He insinuated that the Fabian Society was behind the Progressive moment in the United States, and here was his example.
"Say you want to build a car engine in your living room. Your wife tells you no. So instead of building the engine all at once, you build it piece by piece over time. You bring in one part a day, and build it like that. Your wife will moan, but since you did it over time, by the time she notices she just relents and let's you finish it"
He claims the that socialists in the United States are working that way, and that they will eventually take over because the people will just accept it. The reasoning is that so many socialists pieces of legislation and ideals will be in place the people will just accept it.
How is that not pure fear-mongering with NO factual basis? For one, the US is a two-party system. Republicans are constantly shooting down Democrat policies and ideals and using any way possible to hold back legislation. It also seems that the GOP will have even more Congressional power after November.
How is it even possible for what he describes to happen? Are the GOP and the left in cahoots??
And I love how he takes shots at the mainstream media (like he isnt mainstream media?? haha, Beck defines mainstream). If Glenn Beck is not a mainstream media, then what is?
I only watched 20 minutes of Beck. I have no idea what else he railed about, I just wanted to see other's opinions on Beck.
Originally Posted by Biggin
Bookmarks