Monday, May 24, 2010

Glenn Beck and European “Fascism”

Tex Avery: Wolf Blitz

Dymphna and I have a local friend whose political views are congenial with ours. When discussing political matters, we never disagree on anything significant — except, that is, when the topic of Glenn Beck arises.

Back in March, Glenn Beck joined forces with certain of his better-credentialed colleagues — notably Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol — in condemning Geert Wilders. Mr. Wilders was cited as evidence of a renascent European “fascism”.

To refresh your memory, here’s a video of Glenn Beck’s sand-poundingly clueless epiphany about the European “far right”:


As you can see, Mr. Beck simply does not know what he is talking about. From time to time I’ve taken various Europeans to task for weighing in on the United States when they don’t understand it, but the reverse is also true. Americans can be as clueless about Europe as vice versa, and often more so.

Our friend wrote us to point out some particularly good points that Glenn Beck had made in a recent program, and to suggest that we might want to reconsider our negative opinion of him. Here’s what I wrote back to her:

Glenn Beck has said many things in the past that I have supported. You can find several videos of him our blog’s archives. He’s a little too weepy for me, but that’s just my personal taste. Up until a few months ago he was just fine with me.

However, he recently earned my disapproval for one major reason: he referred to Geert Wilders as a “fascist”. Since Geert is a leader in the struggle against the Jihad, and may be the next prime minister of the Netherlands, this lowers Glenn’s credibility in my eyes.

I am forced to draw one of three conclusions (or a combination of them):
- - - - - - - - -
1. Glenn truly considers any European a “fascist” if he is both a nationalist and resists Islamization. In that case, the ideological divide between Glenn and me is too great, and cannot be crossed.
2. Glenn said what he said because he is foolish, ignorant, and/or ill-advised. In which case he has no business with a prominent talk show on national television. Especially since he previously (in 2009, I think) had Geert Wilders on his program and lionized the man. Geert hasn’t changed an iota between then and now. His message is identical.
3. Glenn found it expedient for career or other reasons to say such an appalling thing. If so, I hold him in contempt for being unprincipled and cynical.

As you see, any of these three reasons would be enough for me to discount Glenn Beck’s credentials as a commentator. You might say, “but Glenn is good on other things.” And so he is. But that doesn’t matter. It can’t possibly make up for the damage he did to our movement with his foolish words.

By dismissing the de facto political leader of the European Counterjihad as “fascist”, he in effect washed his hands of Europe, and has left the Europeans to the tender mercies of Islam.

If European nationalists are “fascists” and must be opposed, then there is no alternative to the Islamization of Europe, because the only groups and parties that resist Islam are nationalist in character.

Yes, it’s true that I view all this from a Eurocentric point of view. I’m very biased. My primary work is in the European Counterjihad networks, and I know firsthand that many of the people in them are selfless heroes of our times. It’s hard for me to see this from a detached perspective.

However, Glenn Beck’s little “anti-fascist” moment also makes me wonder about his stature as an American patriot. If it came down to it, and he had to resist the Mexican invasion on cultural terms — i.e., for what are commonly called “racist” reasons — would he be able to stand up to the inevitable smears? Or would he find himself speaking out against American “fascists” — those of us who believe that the incursion of alien cultures is bad for the country, and would destroy America if left unchecked?

Glenn’s capacity to think through an issue in any depth is thrown into question by all this. The shallowness of his understanding has been exposed.

I have been forced to consign him to the same ash heap as O’Reilly and many others — full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

America has a political type that may be unique: the conservative multiculturalist. This peculiar animal advocates small government, low taxes, the right to bear arms, and enhanced personal liberty. But he also believes that open borders are generally beneficial, and that America is better off for having a massive influx of foreigners from totally alien races and cultures.

It may well be that Glenn Beck arrives at his charges of “fascism” by means of this PC conservative perspective. This is a position that I staunchly oppose.

If the time should ever come when he has to choose between the feel-good “rainbow” version of conservatism and the tougher, meaner kind, which will he choose?

Will he opt to defend traditional American culture against those who would destroy it?

Or will he reject that position as “fascism”, and decide to celebrate diversity along with his colleagues on the Left?

19 comments:

Henrik R Clausen said...

A suggestion for Mr. Beck:

Get Liberal Fascism. Read it.

Everyone else encouraged, too.

Further, I recall that News.Corp are very cosy with the Arabs. I don't think this combo is good for the credibility of Mr. Beck, nor for Fox in general.

Juniper in the Desert said...

News Corp is part-owned by Prince Alaweed of Saudi Arabia.

Zenster said...

However, Glenn Beck’s little “anti-fascist” moment also makes me wonder about his stature as an American patriot. If it came down to it, and he had to resist the Mexican invasion on cultural terms — i.e., for what are commonly called “racist” reasons — would he be able to stand up to the inevitable smears? Or would he find himself speaking out against American “fascists” — those of us who believe that the incursion of alien cultures is bad for the country, and would destroy America if left unchecked?

This is something that Glenn Beck himself has called into question by associating Geert Wilders with "fascism". Thank you for articulating it so clearly but the onus is now upon Beck to clarify his position.

I agree that we may be looking at the usual ration of PC infected conservative taurine fecal matter that Bush was so enamored with.

As to this article's illustration, I suggest updating it with Dan Piraro's May 23rd Bizarro Comic Strip.

With all the talk of Danish Hell's Angels, this amusing little fillip is far more timely than even the cartoonist probably imagined.

spackle said...

Mr. Beck has gone the way of unhinged Libertarianism when it comes to Europe and immigration. He keeps pounding away at "I am all for legal immigration". Well, how much? We are now at 300 million. When is enough? 500 million? 700 million? One billion? He never says. I too was deeply disappointed when I saw his asinine comments on Geert Wilders and Europe in general. But he really lost me when I heard him on the radio about a month ago stop just short of saying that God was talking to him. What is it they say? When you talk to God thats okay, when he talks back? Look out.
Someone commented over at "view from the right" that he speaks with the passion of a college student who just learned something that opened their heads up. And in his case it is true. He probably just learned it and has not had enough time to digest and mull over what a lot of folks have known for a long time. Beck has to decide if he wants to be a commentator, comedian, preacher or full time student. Right now he just comes across as Lonsome Rhodes.

Henrik R Clausen said...

'All for legal immigration'?

That's a senseless statement. One can set the law as one wishes, and amnesty for illegal turns them into legal.

Immigration is costly, for until barriers of language and culture have been over come, immigrants will be less productive than native citizens. Some very much so...

Sean O'Brian said...

Glenn Beck is a bit of a clown. He cries more often than Gazza. Establishment media criticism of Fox News' "infotainment" is more valid than many conservatives are willing to give credence to. Beck's mixture of serious political commentary and theatrical low comedy does not feel right to me. (He had a man dressed in a Mao costume waiting by a red phone hotline for the White House to call in.)

The conservative movement is a movement within liberalism, and so I take the disapproval of Wilders by the conservative-liberals as a sign he is on the right track. Likewise, the illegality of the Mexican invasion allows the conservative-liberals to oppose it on a technicality without violating the sacred oaths of liberalism. On what basis would they oppose legal immigration? Answer: they wouldn't.

For neconservatives it has always and only been about fighting fascism. In Iraq, the US replaced Ba'athism - which is after all just a form of Arab National Socialism - with Constitutional sharia. The war against the Al-Qaeda corporation (and their allies the Taliban, who were offered a chance to stay out of it by the US but refused) was a bizarre exception made necessary by the September 11th mass murder. It is now also a war to make Afghanistan "safe for sharia".

On the European front, Victor Davis Hanson warns that America and the world could soon face a new "German problem":

"Germany is angry. So far all the traditional restraints upon its pique — allied military rivals on its two borders, a divided country, fear of a nuclear Soviet Union, incorporation within the EU and NATO — are either nonexistent or increasingly problematic. If it should choose, Germany could go nuclear in six months." Etc., etc.

I don't even know what to say about things like this. The Second World War isn't just a part of our history - it is the air we breathe. Will the last zombified Churchill cultist please turn out the lights? It seems to me as if people now would find a war with Germany comforting. Think how nice it would be to firebomb Dresden, just like paw used to. If Erdogan's shock troops can play convincing Jews I'd we're all set to go.

Sean O'Brian said...

and decide to celebrate diversity along with his colleagues on the Left?

I came across this passage in Canterbury Tales the other day, which I marked:

Thanne sawe therinne swich difficultee
By wey of reson, for to speke al playn,
By cause that ther was swich diversitee
Bitwene hir bothe lawes, that they sayn
They trowe, 'that no Cristen prince wolde fayn
Wedden his child under oure law sweete
That us was taught by Mahoun, oure prophete.'
[Mahomet]

Funny that Chaucer - writing in the 12th century - would use the term "diversitee" to describe the tension between the Christian law and Mohammed's law. Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Elan-tima said...

Phil Hendrie, a radio personality in America, has his own satirical radio show where he covers social and political topics by interviewing fictional guests who are in fact Phil Hendrie with various accents. Phil openly says that his show is a "SHOW", its entertainment, thats what radio and television are about. Mr. Glen Beck sat in to watch and learn from Phil Hendrie when Glen was starting up in the business. Phil openly admits he's spoofing everyone and has called Glen a Huckster because Glen Beck won't admit that he's just another entertainer like Phil Hendrie.

I'm kinda amazed that people think that because someone is on TV talking politics that they're sincerely serious about the topic.
All the Glen Becks, O'Reilys, Hannitys, Obermans in America and elsewhere are there for the wealth and fame. If they were sincere and commited they wouldn't be allowed near a TV camera.

Having read substantialy about Fascism from historians to the actual original Fascists themselves, I must say that anyone nowadays who says fascist repeatedly, knows little about the political and yes, cultural movement. I've come to the conclusion that that is precisely the point. To spread misinformation and create boogy men to scare everyone away from informing themselves to make sound judgements on politics. It has been mentioned here at GOV in a previous article that it was the Stalinist Commies who first began calling anyone who wasen't on their team a Fascist.

Read Zeev Sternhell's book THE BIRTH OF FASCIST IDEOLOGY for a proper ground up education on the real Fascism. As a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mr. Sternhell has probably written the definitive beginners guide to the ideology.

Tim Johnston said...

Awful.

I would love to believe that Beck is either just ill-advised or playing to his crowd.
Either way, this was a hideous indictment to Wilders, who is essentially a Classical Liberal without a fascist tendency in his body.
If this sounds naive, bear in mind I have read Liberal Fascism (as has Beck, he claims) and took the message firmly on board.

Europe's New "far right" is not far right at all as the Left understands it, but is a resurgence of an almost Burkean Liberalism which I am proud to support.

Get behind Geert!

Natalie said...

I don't know about all of you, but I'm really sick and tired of the whole fascist smear. It's used to often and so broadly that it has truly become meaningless.

In many ways, the European right seems to be more right-wing than the right here in America. I'm also proud to support them.

rebelliousvanilla said...

This just shows where we got this stupid stuff with the extreme left and right from...

I agree, Beck is an utter idiot, but I do think that his Saudi master's money has a part in it. We have this effect in mass-media too, to the point where you expect what the anchors will say depending on the political views of the owner.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

There's no Business like show business, a political dandy merely filling up the empty spaces between the commercial breaks.

Rupert Murdoch and fox news a parody of conservatism.

kritisk_borger said...

Which of the two fictitious individuals below displays the most undiluted fascist and psychopathic traits?

Is it the average career politician who has no interest in representing the people, who is more than willing to backstab colleagues in order to rise within the political hierarchy, who is more than willing to leak damaging information to the media about colleagues if he himself thinks that he’ll benefit from it and who’s willing to do pretty much whatever it takes to remain in power?

Or is it the idealist who’s trying to identify a problem and come up with a workable solution to those problems even though these solutions may be unpopular?

As long as Geert Wilders isn’t advocating that immigrants should be treated worse than native Europeans it would be wrong to label him a fascist.

And by the way, I reckon that the biggest accumulation of fascist and psychopaths in my own country Norway can be found in the parliament building in Oslo, and that’s probably also the case for the rest of Europe too.

Paul Weston said...

Baron Bodissey and Fjordman have both written hundreds of thousands, if not millions of words, over the last few years.

But over the last 24 hours they have both come up with a handful of sentences, which combined, encapsulate the current woes of the West.

Fjordman, over at the Brussels Journal:

"Are Islamic teachings inherently violent? Yes."

"Can Islam be reformed? No."

"Can Islam be reconciled with our way of life? No."

"Is there such as thing as a moderate Islam? No."

"Can we continue to allow Muslims to settle in our countries? No. These few sentences contain all the information about Islam that you will ever need to know."

Almost, but not quite Fjordman, because the Baron then weighs in with this from the above article:

"If European nationalists are “fascists” and must be opposed, then there is no alternative to the Islamization of Europe, because the only groups and parties that resist Islam are nationalist in character."

As we are detailing such blunt and concise truths, allow me to finish with one of my own:

"In order to prevent a pan-continental civil/religious war of unimaginable horror from happening in the very near future, will it become necessary to expel all Muslims from the West?" Yes.

costin said...

Beck also dissapointed me a lot when I saw this video, but he is not a perfect, a saint or the like.. he made this stupid mistake, for one reason or another, but I still respect the work he does good, and I think that he is very useful.

I dont think that the Counterjihad movement needs him, and I dont think he did harm to the movement. He is good on his slice of the pie, he sucks in others. Lets not discard him totaly. Its like refusing to listen to Robert Spencer from now on because of the stupid incindent he and Pamela Geller had with Vlad Tepes and Baron. They still make a good job, even if they could do a lot better by colaborating with the Gates of Vienna team. This is how I see things for the time being

Zenster said...

Paul Weston: "In order to prevent a pan-continental civil/religious war of unimaginable horror from happening in the very near future, will it become necessary to expel all Muslims from the West?" Yes.

Sadly, even expulsion may not be sufficient to avert a "pan-continental civil/religious war" with Islam. Unless some sort of Berlin Wall-like containment around the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) were performed, dar al-harb would continue to be antagonized until an existential threat was finally posed unto Islam.

Said containment is physically impossible and, even were it so, Muslims would still take such a measure as an interminable goad to conduct jihad beyond their borders.

Islam's very nature literally assures the very unhappiest of endings to its story. This is an intentional aspect of its death-obsessed doctrine that cares not one whit about the loss of every Muslim life on earth. Visions of martyrdom blind Islam to the point that there are some from its ranks who would sooner see all human life − every man, woman and child − cleansed from the face of this earth, with the kufr rotting in hell and Muslims in their paradise, rather than share the world with a single unbeliever.

There is no happy ending to such fanaticism. It is just one of many reasons why I continue to predict an entirely avoidable Muslim holocaust. Remember:

ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

Proud Infidel said...

One of the Left's biggest successes has been the demonization of "nationalism" as fascism. That's why anyone standing up for nation and culture is so frequently railed against as a racist and a bigot and fascist. Often by so called conservatives as well. It's why mounting a defense of our culture against the growth of Islamism is such a difficult and thankless task. God bless and keep the brave souls like the Baron and Dympha, the incomparable Fjordman, Geert Wilders and others. Champions of freedom, they are.

NorseAlchemist said...

I'm with everyone here who thinks Beck should learn about G.W. before he speaks. That being said, I'm willing to give Beck some slack, showboat that he is. This is because he is so focused on the Progressive Movement, which is a credible threat in and of itself, that I think he hasn't had time to research Islamization to the degree we all would like. Also, the Muslim connection probably hinders that learning. Since taking out Progressivism would likely destabilize America even faster than is already occurring, it probably is seen as a good thing by the Muslim owners of Fox.

I too would be interested to see how he would deal with harsher calls of racism in the face of illegal immigration, but I doubt we shall see much of that.

Cobra said...

Beck made that awful gaffe, but his overall work is till positive.
I skipped his program for a week or so, after the Gert episode,but I returned, because he has the guts to take on the Obama dictatorship and he brings historical facts to the people, which is very important to keep our spirits high during these demshevik dark ages...