Beck is such a deranged moron that he makes Louis Farrakhan sound coherent and mentally stable. Compare Beck's critique of art to one of Farrakhan's tirades on YouTube.

---

If Glenn Beck wasn't an employee of FoxNoise, he'd have been hauled in by the police anti-lunatic squad long before now.

Seriously... I don't think I've ever seen such sustained insanity outside of a Pat Robertson diatribe and Beck makes Robertson look rational. As far as his "damning evidence" of communo-fascisimo art is concerned, you can't tell if the charioteer is supposed to be Mussolini or Stephen Boyd from Ben Hur —it's just a generic image. I also find it amusing that his representation of the alleged mural in the lobby of 30-Rock is actually a copy which is on display in Mexico City, according to Beck himself —which means that you have to take Beck's word that the mural he "critiques" is the same one as the mural that was in the lobby if you've never actually been to the actual building.

---

What a vivid imagination my brother has. At age five, he was able to deduce, through careful observation of the neighbours, that babies were brought not by the stork but rather by the midwife. In her satchel.
—Mycroft Holmes The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes (1970)

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

What, didn't you hear? Standard Oil avoided strikes in its workforce by paying better wages than the competition and rewarding employees for innovative ideas.

This sounds pretty gosh-darned communist to me!

Standard Oil could also afford to do that because it had a monopoly over the industry and controlled so much of the supply (as much as 91% at peak) and pipeline almost that it could just set prices at will. It also bribed the railroads to fuck over competitors who tried to avoid the pipelines and couldn’t muster enough capital to build new ones themselves. This is why the US Supreme Court broke it up in 1911 into no less then 34 separate companies. Some people might argue that such a level of monopoly pretty much is communist. Certainly American capitalists would usually prefer just a few monopolies, rather then one. Worked for the railroads.

The Wall Street Journal ran editorials opposing the breakup of the old Bell telephone monopoly, which was enormously powerful in its day. I wouldn't say that capitalists necessarily dislike the idea of a single monopoly, as long as they own shares in it.

The US government also actually paid Bell for a while enhance its level of monopoly, because we wanted them to have a highly redundant system to survive air attacks and then nuclear attacks. That’s a major factor in why they were allowed to persist so long and certainly skewed the situation. Bell also operated a bit different then a typical monopoly, since while almost unchallenged in the US they actually gave away technology to foreign countries they had no operations in.

Meanwhile Bell operated a system of subsidies which kept down the costs of local phone services. When that system ceased with the breakup new systems of charges had to be introduced to rebalance costs, and the FCC continues to fuck with that system to this day because it doesn’t really work. Ironically AT&T has now also been allowed to buy back a number of the spin-off companies too because they didn’t prove very financially successful with limited and largely local only assets. So a fair example I agree, but all and all not a very typical one either.

Apparently he didn't know Hitler hated communism and actually attacked USSR in the name of abolishing communism.

Really, they have a remarkable degree of self-delusion.

The entire matter comes down to people being simpletons. To a lot of people, it's impossible for two nations to have some similar policies on things like education or health care and yet be wildly dissimilar in their internal politics. It's the kind of mindset that can't tell apart France from Spain, Korea from Japan or the Czech Republic from Poland.

The III Reich was a xenophobic pro-worker ultra-nationalist state, while the Soviet Union was an inernationalist pro-worker technocratic atheist state. To a normal person, these are two very different entities. To a simpleton, they're both pro-worker, ergo they're exactly the same.

That thread contains some of the most hilarious posts I've read in a long time, thanks for that

On topic - that Beck clip is also very hilarious, mixing up "progressives" and fascism and communism without even touching the topic of why the flying fuck anyone would mix together all that mumbo-jumbo, unless he was as deranged a madman as Glenn Beck is. Seriously, does it even occur to him that fascism and communism are pretty much on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and that no firm believer in the one ideology would also endorse the other? Or do nutcases like him actually think like the people in the linked post, i.e. "Nazis = national socialists = communists"?

Glenn Beck's paranoid ravings do not make much sense, I can see the person contracted to paint the wall mural sneak in a few pro-Communist messages without the knowledge of the patrons (it happens), but that does not reflet much on the political views of Mr. Rockerfeller. And Italian Fascism was fairly pro-big business (although without being anti-consumer or anti-worker), so I hardly say it's akin to moving Lenin's Tomb into the lobby area of the Rockefeller Centre.

Here's the Young Turks having a recorded sound clip featuring Glenn Beck sounding clinically paranoiac.

---

'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.'

'Dey took ure jurbs!'

Ugh...my brain.
Paraphrasing 90% of that thread:
"They were called National Sozialists, so they were totally the same as (normal) socialists. Therefore, anyone who has social policies acts like Nazis".
Nice move - totally ignoring the meaning of "social". Hint: It relates to Society.

But oh well, its rapture ready - people who believe that the world will end soon anyway, based on supposed eyewitness who saw some guy heal leprosy 2000 years ago.

It's kinda like "Swiss People's Party" (SVP). The English translation of the party's name sounds absolutely left-wing, but they're far from it.

This illustrates the kind of incredibly superficial thinking that people like this typically engage in. They find an excuse to say that, and they roll with it. They make no attempt to perform even the most cursory examination of Hitler's life, or else they would discover that he hated communists and one of the first things he did upon assuming power was to arrest all of the Communists in the Reichstag. Or the fact that he outlawed all of the trade unions.

In my oppionion, it's really childish thinking, too - looking at superficial appearance (in that case, a name) and being unable to look at anything else.

A lot of people look at superficial appearance first, but are capable of looking further (they might not do it, but they could if they choose to do so).
But these people seem to be completely unable to do so - just like young children.

Of course. The right has boiled it's opinions and philosophy down to the level of children so that they can feed their bullshit to their kids, and they never bother to expose them to any higher thought than the O'Reilly Factor. Is it really surprising they think like children for their entire life?

---

RIP My Sig

If I never heared of the guy, I would honestly think it was some standup comedian doing his act. It's so ridiculous I got a hard time believing that he's serious about it

I was sharing this same view with my dad the other day. The ridiculous things that Beck spouts steer very closely to the comedy of Stephen Colbert and the sincerity of antics of Andy Kaufman. Either he's the world’s most clever satirist or he's the world’s most douchey moron. I'm almost certain it's the latter.

IF we assume that he is NOT serious (there is no evidence for this), ask the following question:

Does he recognize that people take him seriously?
If he does, why doesn't he stop?

Suppose you make a comedy show about where one of your (fictional) characters caricatures Hitler.
Once you make it public, some people start to take it seriously.
Would you drop that act then?

Btw, this is similar to the premise of the excellent novel "The Wave"

Even IF we assume that he means it as a caricature, why does he not stop it?
Either he is too stupid and uniformed to recognize that people take him seriously - or he is an immoral asshole that just does not care.

And that is IF we assume he is not serious.

Furthermore, you would have to ask the question why he is doing his "act" on FOX of all places.

Simple answer would be $$$ and power. He's a narcissistic greedy asshole. I doubt most wealthy televangelists believe half the shit they spew. But they realize that other people DO and it's a cash cow. They're shysters and con-men. If I were a sociopathic dishonest fuckwad that's the angle I'd take too. Figure out what speaks to the ignorant masses and squeeze it for all it's worth.

Without knowing his true motivation I'm really having a hard time deciding which I'd prefer to believe. That someone so moronic and detached from reality could rise to such prominence or that a con-man could be clever enough to have such a large captive audience buying into his act.




Largest audience (I believe Fox is the #1 news network in ratings..) and a shit-ton of money.

Even Ann Coulter has claimed multiple times that she doesn't believe all of the things she says on TV, and half of it is as much her own thoughts as it is trolling liberals (I'm para-phrasing, obviously). The sincerity of far-right media is a scary place to be, when the views of Chuck Norris are rubbing up against a transvestite lizard and a radio comedian. Who the fuck knows how serious he can be?

---

I'll overlook almost anything for 10 bucks.
~Executor32

Beck and Co. are becoming flailing parodies of themselves because it's more or less over, the Triad they depend on, Christian fundamentalism (religious theocracy is an unsustainable aberration in a advanced nation like America), Neoconservatism (badly tarnished international PR, cul-de-sacs for the US Military) and Neoliberalism (which has contemptuously eroded the consumer base too much to support itself) are all showing early signs of coming to a well deserved close.

---

'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.'

'Dey took ure jurbs!'

That's easy for you to say. I still make a point of dealing with the occasional rank-and-file Republican, and they're as adamant as ever. Just today, Rebecca got involved in a message exchange with a Republican moron in California (former classmate) who simultaneously quotes the Bible and Ayn Rand. You can point out how grossly incompatible those two sources are all day long, but it doesn't register.

Trust me, I've been there on the Internet, just look at these threads from the political section of TGWTG forum:

Glenn Beck: Reasonable Questions For Unreasonable Times
America and Socialism...
The 9/12 Tea Partiers

As with Spacebattles.com, ThaGuyWithTheGlasses.com is not a bad place per-se (the hoster, Douglas Walker, is certainly not right-wing) but never the less the place is broad enough to generate a phalanx of Conservatards who are keen to commence on a uninterrupted course to the Andromeda Galaxy.

---

'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.'

'Dey took ure jurbs!'