http://www.prisonplanet.com/glenn-beck-for-dummies.html
Glenn Beck For Dummies
Beck is a fake revolutionary who has hijacked the freedom movement and is being used to lead conservatives and libertarians down the rabbit hole
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 25, 2010
Glenn Beck is being characterized by the establishment as the leader of the freedom movement and yet a closer analysis of his ideology reveals that Beck is nothing more than a fake revolutionary who has supported and is pushing policies that are diametrically opposed to those embraced by true constitutionalists.
Beck and Fox News have hijacked the patriot movement and are leading conservatives and libertarians down a meaningless partisan rabbit hole in a clear attempt to neutralize genuine opposition to the big government agenda of the Obama administration.
It is important to stress that we are not picking a fight with Glenn Beck or Fox News in general as a crude effort to garner attention. Glenn Beck routinely attacks real libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and those who would define themselves as constitutionalists. We are constantly forced to rebut his smears against people in the freedom movement while Beck claims to be one of us.
Indeed, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who also appears on Fox News, is an example of a real constitutionalist and we are in full agreement with his views.
As the video below illustrates, despite the fact that Beck claims to be “a Libertarian at heart,” he has publicly supported programs and legislation that are universally abhorred by the vast majority of libertarians, such as the banker bailout and the USA Patriot Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U
Beck has also been aggressively pushing for new taxes in order to pay for the bailout that he supported. On December 4, he appeared on fellow neo-con Bill O’Reilly’s show to promote a 2 percent VAT tax to be adopted that would go directly to pay down the national debt.
While lending support to the Tea Party movement out of one side of his mouth, out of the other Beck is promoting the exact thing they are protesting against – more taxes.
Beck is not a real libertarian, he is a performing circus act who is being positioned as a clown to discredit issues that the genuine freedom movement embraces, such as exposing the fact that man-made global warming is a fraud.
Certainly, on several issues Beck jives with populist sentiment, but on all the major fronts – war, the patriot act, warrantless spying, the bailout, and new taxes, he is nothing more than a shill for big government.
Beck’s agenda is to put out a dual message – to discredit and polarize the conservative movement to the benefit of the two party monopoly. His bizarre and clownish antics of fake crying, which were proven to be staged when Beck replicated them on demand for a GQ photo shoot, are doing nothing but reinforcing the stereotype that the freedom movement is extreme and unbalanced.
Beck’s entire 9/12 project has nothing to do with uniting America and everything to do with reinforcing neo-conservative rhetoric about how we should relinquish our rights and accept the police state because terrorists want to attack us and Saddam Hussein had WMD’s and yellowcake.
During his Monday September 22 2008 TV broadcast, Beck expressed his vehement support for the bailout, stating, “The $700 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only I believe necessary, it is also not nearly enough.” However, as soon as Bush left office and Obama picked up the baton and continued the same financial policy, he changed his tune and routinely attacked the bailout as an example of how socialism was taking over America.
The bailout was bad news for America under Bush just as it is under Obama, both were merely performing a transfer of wealth from America to offshore banks and giving the Federal Reserve total dictatorial control over the economy, but Beck only opposed it when Bush was out of office, proving that his opinions are not wedded to right or wrong, but to which puppet is in the White House.
A host of mainline conservative talking heads opposed the banker bailout, as did the majority of the American people, but Beck went on television and publicly supported it. This is irreconcilable with Beck being “a libertarian at heart” as he claims.
In addition, Beck aggressively attacked Ron Paul and his supporters during the election campaign when it looked like the Texan Congressman might have a real chance of winning the nomination. Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters were domestic terrorists and should be dealt with by the U.S. Army, but later tried to side with Ron Paul supporters when the infamous and discredited MIAC report echoed his own talking point that people who support Ron Paul were dangerous.
The smear came during a November 2007 show when Beck was on CNN. Alongside ex-Marxist David Horowitz, Beck demonized Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive. When asked about the issue, Ron Paul dismissed Beck as “pretty discourteous” and a “demagogue”.
Beck has also worked with government propagandists Popular Mechanics in an effort to “debunk” the existence of internment camps in America. Beck’s hit piece consisted of setting up a straw man argument while ignoring the manifestly provable evidence that such facilities exist and that they are admittedly being prepared to house citizens during times of civil unrest.
Beck has ceaselessly attacked 9/11 truthers as dangerous extremists, echoing precisely talking points put out by Obama information czar Cass Sunstein. Just last week Beck said on his nationally syndicated radio show that there are 9/11 truth activists in the White House and they threaten the life of Obama. The fact that Beck is repeating White House talking points to demonize political adversaries of the administration proves that his image as an anti-establishment guru is a manufactured fraud.
Beck has been a vehement cheerleader for the wars of aggression launched since 9/11 and in addition called for Iran to be attacked, claiming that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing a “second holocaust.” Once again, these political opinions stand completely contrary to libertarian principles, which follow the founding fathers’ view that an expansionist aggressive foreign policy is bad for America.
Beck has attacked Obama for unraveling the Bush war machine, when in fact Obama has done everything in his power to expand Bush’s wars, beefing the campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan while removing a token amount of troops from Iraq and replacing them with an even greater number of contractors.
By attacking Obama for being different to Bush, when in reality he offers no change whatsoever, Beck keeps people locked in the left-right paradigm and ensures that instead of coming to the realization that the whole system is rigged, they will merely vote in another puppet for the new world order in 2012.
Beck is the perfect example of controlled opposition, he is there to co-opt and ensure the Tea Parties are under control and that they never focus on taking on the real power behind the American economy – the Federal Reserve.
Glenn Beck is a fake revolutionary whose job it is to lead conservatives and libertarians away from uniting behind the real issues, while absorbing the successes of the patriot movement and in turn discrediting it by way of his clownish antics and easily derided mannerisms. He is part of a wider approach on behalf of Fox News to become a beacon for freedom movement and then act as a steam valve for its issues, deluding people into thinking their interests are being represented when in reality they are merely being sucked up and spewed out as something entirely misrepresentative.
It is vital that we alert the freedom movement to the fact that Beck is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and one must only scratch beneath the surface to discover that his true political standpoint is the complete opposite of that embraced by true constitutionalists. If we continue to let Beck and Fox News pose as our leaders the entire movement will crash and burn because we will be allowing the foxes to guard the henhouse.
Showing posts with label David Horowitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Horowitz. Show all posts
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Horowitz’s singular pluralism
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2389.shtml
Horowitz’s singular pluralism
By Ben Tanosborn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 7, 2007
I must confess that until mid-April 2003, the only Horowitz that quickly came to mind for me was the notable Russian pianist . . . then dead for 14 years. And his name was Vladimir, definitely not David. But it was an email from one of the many pro-war critics who’d read my assiduous denunciation of Iraq’s invasion and occupation that invited me in sarcastic tones to click on a cyber address (Front Page Magazine) to something which “a David Horowitz” had written.
“Baghdad is liberated. In the days to come let us not forget that if it were not for one man, and one man alone -- George Bush -- the people of Iraq would not be celebrating in the streets and pulling down Saddam’s statues today,” the piece read. That and a whole other accompanying trash one would expect from Ann Coulter doing her littering catwalk, or any graduates of her political modeling agency. So I quickly dismissed it . . . but only until Christmas that year when an ultraconservative client gifted me a copy of “Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey,” authored by none other than David Horowitz. This Horowitz had catapulted from a Marxist-Maoist position in the '60s and early '70s, all 180 degrees to a full-fledged neocon; the type of American political dream story that brings a smile to our politicians’ faces, and warms the hearts of America’s body politic.
David Horowitz found out, after an evolutionary internal political hiatus, that writing on behalf of American capitalism, no matter how predatory or unjust it proves to be, is far more economically rewarding than penning for those foolish ideals he had espoused while at UC Berkeley and the “unenlightened” decade that followed. Now all he has to do is turn the silk lining of his old coat and let the smoothness of the new acquired faith shine through, taking on anything that smacks of the Left, or anarcho-syndicalism in the image of Chomsky, or American blacks who might complain, or what he calls Radical Islam on the book cover and Islamo-Fascism in the text, or his ongoing fight against that entrenched Left in academe warring against his idea of academic freedom.
Although I don’t find Horowitz’ mini-tirades intellectually stimulating, and definitely not challengingly adversarial, I do take a weekly peek at the choreographed war-dance that takes place at frontpagemag.com against us folks who have been ridiculously and merciless branded as America-haters. After all, 2 million daily website visits places this pulpit of neoconservatism at a worldwide rank approaching the 50,000th high-traffic mark among 100-plus million websites. And, had you been visiting the site during the past two years, you would have found his personal blogs directed in great part towards the misgivings of the Left in academe. But heck, that’s to be expected, for what better way to promote his last two books, both dealing with treasonous professors of the Left and his alert virtuosity in the defense of academic freedom, than a reminder of those very dangerous professors led by William Ayers (University of Illinois, Chicago), Peter McLaren (UCLA) or any of the other 101 red-spotted professor-Dalmatians.
In Saturday’s blog, Horowitz decries the invitation by the “intellectually corrupt” Department of Romance Languages at Cornell of Álvaro Garcia Linera, vice president of Bolivia and “God-forgive-us,” a socialist. A non literary-lecture on “Marxism and Indianism” scheduled for September 3 is too racist and fascistic for Mr. Horowitz, who constantly reminds us he’s an advocate for intellectual diversity. Such self-claimed advocacy would indeed be hilariously funny, if it weren’t so pungently obscene.
The most striking part of this convert to Righteousness is precisely that advocacy to what he proclaims as the mission of America’s elementary and secondary schools “to serve American pluralism: to educate a community of citizens who disagree with each other into a common culture of tolerance and respect.” As wonderful as that may sound, it’s important to bear in mind that diversity and pluralism for David Horowitz operate in a political spectrum of just 90 degrees, from the right to the extreme right; all contained in a Right angle of social irresponsibility and lack of social justice.
Whether David Horowitz accepts it or not, present day society is highly unjust not just in the Third World, but all throughout much of the globe, including the US . . . and that the free market, which is by no means free, will not bring social justice, nor will the promotion of philanthropy and charity bring equity and elevate humankind towards ever higher degrees of equality and the adherence to a universal concept of human rights.
There are several paths to social justice, but Horowitz’s choice of singular pluralism is not one of them. At least those professors on the Left he speaks ill of have one of the paths that might get us there . . . if not the only path.
David Horowitz needs to retranslate “e pluribus unum” and relearn what pluralism is.
Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at ben@tanosborn.com.
Horowitz’s singular pluralism
By Ben Tanosborn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 7, 2007
I must confess that until mid-April 2003, the only Horowitz that quickly came to mind for me was the notable Russian pianist . . . then dead for 14 years. And his name was Vladimir, definitely not David. But it was an email from one of the many pro-war critics who’d read my assiduous denunciation of Iraq’s invasion and occupation that invited me in sarcastic tones to click on a cyber address (Front Page Magazine) to something which “a David Horowitz” had written.
“Baghdad is liberated. In the days to come let us not forget that if it were not for one man, and one man alone -- George Bush -- the people of Iraq would not be celebrating in the streets and pulling down Saddam’s statues today,” the piece read. That and a whole other accompanying trash one would expect from Ann Coulter doing her littering catwalk, or any graduates of her political modeling agency. So I quickly dismissed it . . . but only until Christmas that year when an ultraconservative client gifted me a copy of “Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey,” authored by none other than David Horowitz. This Horowitz had catapulted from a Marxist-Maoist position in the '60s and early '70s, all 180 degrees to a full-fledged neocon; the type of American political dream story that brings a smile to our politicians’ faces, and warms the hearts of America’s body politic.
David Horowitz found out, after an evolutionary internal political hiatus, that writing on behalf of American capitalism, no matter how predatory or unjust it proves to be, is far more economically rewarding than penning for those foolish ideals he had espoused while at UC Berkeley and the “unenlightened” decade that followed. Now all he has to do is turn the silk lining of his old coat and let the smoothness of the new acquired faith shine through, taking on anything that smacks of the Left, or anarcho-syndicalism in the image of Chomsky, or American blacks who might complain, or what he calls Radical Islam on the book cover and Islamo-Fascism in the text, or his ongoing fight against that entrenched Left in academe warring against his idea of academic freedom.
Although I don’t find Horowitz’ mini-tirades intellectually stimulating, and definitely not challengingly adversarial, I do take a weekly peek at the choreographed war-dance that takes place at frontpagemag.com against us folks who have been ridiculously and merciless branded as America-haters. After all, 2 million daily website visits places this pulpit of neoconservatism at a worldwide rank approaching the 50,000th high-traffic mark among 100-plus million websites. And, had you been visiting the site during the past two years, you would have found his personal blogs directed in great part towards the misgivings of the Left in academe. But heck, that’s to be expected, for what better way to promote his last two books, both dealing with treasonous professors of the Left and his alert virtuosity in the defense of academic freedom, than a reminder of those very dangerous professors led by William Ayers (University of Illinois, Chicago), Peter McLaren (UCLA) or any of the other 101 red-spotted professor-Dalmatians.
In Saturday’s blog, Horowitz decries the invitation by the “intellectually corrupt” Department of Romance Languages at Cornell of Álvaro Garcia Linera, vice president of Bolivia and “God-forgive-us,” a socialist. A non literary-lecture on “Marxism and Indianism” scheduled for September 3 is too racist and fascistic for Mr. Horowitz, who constantly reminds us he’s an advocate for intellectual diversity. Such self-claimed advocacy would indeed be hilariously funny, if it weren’t so pungently obscene.
The most striking part of this convert to Righteousness is precisely that advocacy to what he proclaims as the mission of America’s elementary and secondary schools “to serve American pluralism: to educate a community of citizens who disagree with each other into a common culture of tolerance and respect.” As wonderful as that may sound, it’s important to bear in mind that diversity and pluralism for David Horowitz operate in a political spectrum of just 90 degrees, from the right to the extreme right; all contained in a Right angle of social irresponsibility and lack of social justice.
Whether David Horowitz accepts it or not, present day society is highly unjust not just in the Third World, but all throughout much of the globe, including the US . . . and that the free market, which is by no means free, will not bring social justice, nor will the promotion of philanthropy and charity bring equity and elevate humankind towards ever higher degrees of equality and the adherence to a universal concept of human rights.
There are several paths to social justice, but Horowitz’s choice of singular pluralism is not one of them. At least those professors on the Left he speaks ill of have one of the paths that might get us there . . . if not the only path.
David Horowitz needs to retranslate “e pluribus unum” and relearn what pluralism is.
Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at ben@tanosborn.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
