Is it possible to have reasonable discussions in a country where hundreds of thousands of people actually pay a subscription fee to get "information" from insane propagandists who constantly amp them up with FUD?
Beck: "I Have A Feeling We're Headed For A Monarchy"
- Thread starter Charles Kozierok
- Start date
lotus503
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2005
- 6,502
- 1
- 76
This raises so many deep and difficult questions. Every time this issue comes up for me it comes up as a question of freedoms of speech and the Germans. After 50 million of so people dies as a consequence of the 2nd World War, the German's outlawed the Nazi party. That party is no longer allowed to preach its beliefs. They had the utter gall to stomp out one's personal freedom to belong to any party one wants. They decided that society can determine what is best for the people and individual freedom be damned when it comes to the Nazis, that it's not a good idea to let the teaching of a psychopath be widely promoted. We could maybe say the Germans are arrogant, that they think they know what is reasonable and are willing to shove it down all of Germany's throat.
So do we follow the notion that speech against insane speech is the answer, or do we nip an idiot like Beck in the bud and silence him.
This also raises the matter of the media and the licensing of the air waves for corporate interests, with little promise of returns being there. It used to be that they had to supply something in the way of objective news, but more and more they have reneged on that promise because they love money more that truth. If we want to stop the media from broadcasting insanity for a profit, even as it destroys the mentality of the nation and facilitates the development of craziness for more and more craziness susceptible people, then we will have to change the notion that money equals speech that our Supreme court stuck us with.
The question is always how does the person of knowledge avoid taking up the one ring, how does the certainty that we are reasonable in what we believe, with the crazies over there, deal with the obviousness of force as an answer. Do not the insane need to be controlled, and if not, how do you keep them from destroying reason itself.
We are smack dab in the middle of that dilemma in this country right now, as far as I can see.
What do you do about forces that are destroying the country from within by sabotage conducted under the protection of speech.
And what is the motive. Is Beck insane? Is he only moral scum out to make a buck? Is he full of hate and rage and out to do profound evil? Or, is he a visionary who is right? Who decides and what should the solution be. And yes, is there any point in asking with so many possibly already so far gone?
So do we follow the notion that speech against insane speech is the answer, or do we nip an idiot like Beck in the bud and silence him.
This also raises the matter of the media and the licensing of the air waves for corporate interests, with little promise of returns being there. It used to be that they had to supply something in the way of objective news, but more and more they have reneged on that promise because they love money more that truth. If we want to stop the media from broadcasting insanity for a profit, even as it destroys the mentality of the nation and facilitates the development of craziness for more and more craziness susceptible people, then we will have to change the notion that money equals speech that our Supreme court stuck us with.
The question is always how does the person of knowledge avoid taking up the one ring, how does the certainty that we are reasonable in what we believe, with the crazies over there, deal with the obviousness of force as an answer. Do not the insane need to be controlled, and if not, how do you keep them from destroying reason itself.
We are smack dab in the middle of that dilemma in this country right now, as far as I can see.
What do you do about forces that are destroying the country from within by sabotage conducted under the protection of speech.
And what is the motive. Is Beck insane? Is he only moral scum out to make a buck? Is he full of hate and rage and out to do profound evil? Or, is he a visionary who is right? Who decides and what should the solution be. And yes, is there any point in asking with so many possibly already so far gone?
Last edited:
See, for me, it doesn't actually raise any deep and difficult questions. I think Glenn Beck is a nutcase who sows discontent and is bad for this country, but he probably would say the same about me, and we both should have the right to say what we believe as long as it does not encourage or incite illegal behavior.
Light is the best disinfectant, and I'll take 1,000 Glenn Becks over one law telling him or me or anyone else what party we're allowed to belong to or what viewpoints we're allowed to hold.
The best response to free speech you don't like is free speech that you do. That's what a free country is all about. Remember that what you consider "sabotage", they consider "patriotism" -- and vice-versa.
Light is the best disinfectant, and I'll take 1,000 Glenn Becks over one law telling him or me or anyone else what party we're allowed to belong to or what viewpoints we're allowed to hold.
The best response to free speech you don't like is free speech that you do. That's what a free country is all about. Remember that what you consider "sabotage", they consider "patriotism" -- and vice-versa.
I know very well what they call it and very well what it is. But the question I have is whether 50 million dead Americans in a civil war would change your mind?
And if you believe in the 'light approach' and the answers are plain and simple for you, why did you even ask if there were any point to discussion? Also I don't exactly think of Germany as not a free country. And how in a nation of light and free speech, does Beck even find a toe hold. You may believe in free speech all you like, but I do not think a huge number of people can any longer hear. Trying to reach them with speech is going to be useless, is it not. Folk like Beck are collectors of ears.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,809
- 6,364
- 126
I suspect he secretly hopes a Monarchy comes about. It would fit in well with achieving the type of society he seems to want. Monarchy, as a Government form, is merely a more stylish form of Dictatorship. Imagine how well certain unpopular policies can be implemented under such a regime.
Glenn Beck exists b/c there is an audience to pay for him to exist. He is a product of the culture.
People generally look for validation and justification through information rather than looking for truth. Glenn Beck helps his audience justify how they live their lives. He is just an echo, and not really dangerous on his own; the danger is us, and he is one of us.
People generally look for validation and justification through information rather than looking for truth. Glenn Beck helps his audience justify how they live their lives. He is just an echo, and not really dangerous on his own; the danger is us, and he is one of us.
There are very few people, publicly or personally, that inspire feelings of hate within me. Glenn Beck is one of those people.
What do you consider worse - people who listen to and believe Glenn Beck, or people who avoid political discussion altogether (and thus lack much information when they vote, if they vote at all)? I'd guess that in a democracy, apathy is worse than ignorance, but it's a tight race.
What I always find funny/sad is that apparently the fact that none of his predictions come true has no effect on people listening to his next prediction.
This seems to be universally true, unfortunately.
I'd say the opposite. It's easier to educate someone who hasn't been paying attention than someone who's lapped up a stready stream of propaganda for years.
What does that have to do with anything?
I said "we both should have the right to say what we believe", but I included a qualifier: "as long as it does not encourage or incite illegal behavior."
Saying that you think the US is going to become a monarchy is utterly stupid and hysterical, but it's not going to lead to one dead American, much less 50 million.
Because I'm honestly curious how we can as a society ever communicate in the face of constant propaganda bombardment from people like Beck.
Germany is a 'mostly free' country. Just like us. We only differ in where we are not free, and how, and why.
Free speech means people we don't like attracting a following. That's part of a free society.
Research supports this. Once people have an idea in their head (propaganda or no), when confronted with contrary information the normal human reaction is to actually double down on their wrong idea, not accept the new correct one.
So yes, it is almost certainly easier to move uninterested people than it is to move people who are interested but believe wrong things.
That's a good question that I don't have an answer to. My gut says yes, but who knows?
I think we are better off with people who don't care than people who aggressively believe insane things, though.
No, but they allow them via their apathy. Sometimes, being on the sidelines ceases to be the proper ethical choice (IMHO), especially in a democracy.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,809
- 6,364
- 126
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,809
- 6,364
- 126
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Hyperbole sells and it's unfortunate that it's so commonly used because it creates a noise that drowns out somewhat related concerns. I would not argue that we are going to have a monarchy, but I would not hesitate to say that the rights of the people lesson over time and that the concept of freedom and liberty are being looked at somewhat as an embarrassment. If that's not true there seems to be little objection to its erosion.
lotus503
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2005
- 6,502
- 1
- 76
exactly and Beck says what he says because he gets paid a lot to say it.
Take away the profit motive and I doubt even Glenn Beck believes his own crap.
M: I know very well what they call it and very well what it is. But the question I have is whether 50 million dead Americans in a civil war would change your mind?
CK: What does that have to do with anything?
M: It has to do with the fact that 50 million died in WWII and Germany was the most advanced nation of its time and with a democracy and free speech which the Hitler propaganda machine and psychological manipulation gave us all that.
CK: I said "we both should have the right to say what we believe", but I included a qualifier: "as long as it does not encourage or incite illegal behavior."
M: I said that the Germans, after the war, did not agree. They believed that past a certain point it's too late and took preventative measures.
CK: Saying that you think the US is going to become a monarchy is utterly stupid and hysterical, but it's not going to lead to one dead American, much less 50 million.
M: Saying you're the master race doesn't incite any illegal acts, does it? Once the basic psychopathology is in place and has power, then comes the illegal acts, only they are made legal in the process. The point is that the nature of mental illness is to seek to control the world around you so that it doesn't threaten to produce events that provoke one to feel ones madness, to make the world safe for the insane. This makes folk who are insane and political rather dangerous. I am asking if the solution to that is not for the mentally rational to take steps to prevent this or is that just another form of insanity. Do you, say. resort to torturing a person who has hidden a bomb that you know is set to go off and kill innocent people? Are your principles absolute, or do like Germany and make exceptions based of the horror of evidence? Do you, as a rational person, grab the wheel from a mad man who is heading the ship of state to a cliff. How do you know if it's a cliff or a mirage? This is what I refer to as the problem of the One Ring?
--------------------
M: And if you believe in the 'light approach' and the answers are plain and simple for you, why did you even ask if there were any point to discussion?
DK: Because I'm honestly curious how we can as a society ever communicate in the face of constant propaganda bombardment from people like Beck.
M: But I can't see how you could be curious about how one can communicate when you say communication is the answer. You are asking a question that it looks like you have already answered.
-------------
M: Also I don't exactly think of Germany as not a free country. And how in a nation of light and free speech, does Beck even find a toe hold.
CK: Germany is a 'mostly free' country. Just like us. We only differ in where we are not free, and how, and why.
Free speech means people we don't like attracting a following. That's part of a free society.
M: Yes, and in the case of Germany that led to 50 million dead. I am all for free speech, but 50 million dead? It makes me wonder. I think it's the reason folk ask things like, "If you could go back and find Hitler as a child, would you kill him?"
So your question of how to communicate in a world full of propaganda is that once an altered reality is taken for real, there is no way. Only the deluded who have awakened have the skill set to prevent being propagandized again. Every child born is susceptible.
So free speech is the answer if free speech will teach folk how to recognize and save themselves from propaganda but this will not happen because our society is built on it. The endless keeping up with the Jones family next door, endless competition, being socially accepted and in, etc. all these things are there to sell products to folk who have been made dissatisfied with how they were born. We do not feel inside, that we are all loved by a loving God. We need, emotionally, and can be easily manipulated by promises to fix that need. Everybody who knows that a Obama's a cross dressing Queen of England become endowed with a powerful and secret truth that makes him or her a very special person, a somebody in this world, and a person who is a member of a similarly very special group in which one finds acceptance.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that people hate themselves, don't know it and don't want to know and don't want to know they don't want to know. They are thus completely incapable of dealing with their primary issue, the one thing that makes them sick and easily manipulated by the clever sick. So if you want to find a way to communicate, try to figure out a way to communicate that. Because a person asks a question does not mean they want to know the answer.
CK: What does that have to do with anything?
M: It has to do with the fact that 50 million died in WWII and Germany was the most advanced nation of its time and with a democracy and free speech which the Hitler propaganda machine and psychological manipulation gave us all that.
CK: I said "we both should have the right to say what we believe", but I included a qualifier: "as long as it does not encourage or incite illegal behavior."
M: I said that the Germans, after the war, did not agree. They believed that past a certain point it's too late and took preventative measures.
CK: Saying that you think the US is going to become a monarchy is utterly stupid and hysterical, but it's not going to lead to one dead American, much less 50 million.
M: Saying you're the master race doesn't incite any illegal acts, does it? Once the basic psychopathology is in place and has power, then comes the illegal acts, only they are made legal in the process. The point is that the nature of mental illness is to seek to control the world around you so that it doesn't threaten to produce events that provoke one to feel ones madness, to make the world safe for the insane. This makes folk who are insane and political rather dangerous. I am asking if the solution to that is not for the mentally rational to take steps to prevent this or is that just another form of insanity. Do you, say. resort to torturing a person who has hidden a bomb that you know is set to go off and kill innocent people? Are your principles absolute, or do like Germany and make exceptions based of the horror of evidence? Do you, as a rational person, grab the wheel from a mad man who is heading the ship of state to a cliff. How do you know if it's a cliff or a mirage? This is what I refer to as the problem of the One Ring?
--------------------
M: And if you believe in the 'light approach' and the answers are plain and simple for you, why did you even ask if there were any point to discussion?
DK: Because I'm honestly curious how we can as a society ever communicate in the face of constant propaganda bombardment from people like Beck.
M: But I can't see how you could be curious about how one can communicate when you say communication is the answer. You are asking a question that it looks like you have already answered.
-------------
M: Also I don't exactly think of Germany as not a free country. And how in a nation of light and free speech, does Beck even find a toe hold.
CK: Germany is a 'mostly free' country. Just like us. We only differ in where we are not free, and how, and why.
Free speech means people we don't like attracting a following. That's part of a free society.
M: Yes, and in the case of Germany that led to 50 million dead. I am all for free speech, but 50 million dead? It makes me wonder. I think it's the reason folk ask things like, "If you could go back and find Hitler as a child, would you kill him?"
So your question of how to communicate in a world full of propaganda is that once an altered reality is taken for real, there is no way. Only the deluded who have awakened have the skill set to prevent being propagandized again. Every child born is susceptible.
So free speech is the answer if free speech will teach folk how to recognize and save themselves from propaganda but this will not happen because our society is built on it. The endless keeping up with the Jones family next door, endless competition, being socially accepted and in, etc. all these things are there to sell products to folk who have been made dissatisfied with how they were born. We do not feel inside, that we are all loved by a loving God. We need, emotionally, and can be easily manipulated by promises to fix that need. Everybody who knows that a Obama's a cross dressing Queen of England become endowed with a powerful and secret truth that makes him or her a very special person, a somebody in this world, and a person who is a member of a similarly very special group in which one finds acceptance.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that people hate themselves, don't know it and don't want to know and don't want to know they don't want to know. They are thus completely incapable of dealing with their primary issue, the one thing that makes them sick and easily manipulated by the clever sick. So if you want to find a way to communicate, try to figure out a way to communicate that. Because a person asks a question does not mean they want to know the answer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter